SUPREME COURT
Not mentioned, Not mentioned
Mayan v. Mustafa and Another
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdictional errors must be corrected to ensure fair compensation. (Para 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. the consequences of workplace accidents must be justly addressed. (Para 3) |
| 3. compensation awards should reflect the needs of the injured party. (Para 6) |
1. Leave granted.
2. The challenge in the present appeal is against an order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras on 25.4.2013, whereby an appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 was accepted on the ground that the Compensation Commissioner at Tiruchirappalli has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint (sic) as it is the Compensation Commissioner at Cuddalore who has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint (sic).
3. In an accident, which occurred during the course of employment on 5.3.2001, the appellant lost his right leg which got stuck in a harvesting machine. The appellant was working as a worker in the agricultural farm of the respondent since 1997.
4. Learned Compensation Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 1,21,997 with 12 per cent interest. An appeal against the said award was maintainable only on substantial question of law in terms of S.30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.