Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 333 (MAD)

B. Govindarajulu & Another v. Thulasiraman

2008-01-31

R.BANUMATHI

body2008
Judgment : Being aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs.1,49,746/- by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, the employers of the claimant have preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts which are necessary for this appeal are as follows :- The respondent/claimant was employed as a plumber in the first appellants house at No.99 (Old No.20), Pillayar Koil Street, Gengu Reddy Road, Chennai – 8 and was earning Rs.6,000/- p.m. On 20.07.1996 during his employment under the first appellant, the respondent fell down from the first floor as the ladder slipped, and sustained grievous injuries in his right hand and fracture in the right fore arm and thus the respondent was permanently disabled. The respondent was first admitted in the Government Royapettah Hospital and later in Sri Ramachandra Medical Hospital and Research Institute at Porur. 3. The appellants filed counter stating that the respondent was never employed by them as plumber and that the appellants were in Bangalore most of the time during the past three years, carrying out certain projects there and that the respondent had taken two pump motors from the appellants house costing nearly Rs.8,000/- to be repaired by his friend three years back and that thereafter one of the appellants family members happened to see the respondent and asked him to return the pump motors, threatening him that severe action would be taken if the pump motors were not returned immediately. The appellants have alleged that thereafter, respondent workman was absconding for two years without returning motor pumps and only to escape from his liability of paying the amount towards the cost of pump motors, respondent has created a story of fracture being sustained. 4. Before the Commissioner, respondent examined himself as PW-1 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-7 and P-9 and examined Dr.Thiagarajan as PW-2 and marked Ex.P-8 through him. Appellants examined themselves as R.W.s 1 and 2 and one Vijayalakshmi – Manager of the Business concern as RW-3. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the respondent sustained injuries in the course of employment and negatived the contention of the appellants denying employment. Observing that workmans right hand was fractured and there is no flexibility in the right hand, on the basis of Exs.P-3 and P-4, Tribunal assessed the permanent disability as per Schedule I Part II at 60% and awarded compensation of Rs.1,49,746/-. 5. Observing that workmans right hand was fractured and there is no flexibility in the right hand, on the basis of Exs.P-3 and P-4, Tribunal assessed the permanent disability as per Schedule I Part II at 60% and awarded compensation of Rs.1,49,746/-. 5. Challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the respondent was engaged only for contingency work and on the alleged date of accident, he was not a workman engaged in connection with employers trade or business, so as to be entitled to claim compensation from the appellants. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Commissioner went wrong in disbelieving the appellants case that the respondent has foisted a false case against them only because he wanted to get over the pump motor set issue. The respondents claim for compensation is assailed on the ground that the claim was filed nearly three years after the alleged accident. 6. Drawing the attention of the Court to the contradiction in the evidence of R.W.s 1 to 3, the learned Counsel for the respondent workman submitted that the contention of the appellants that they never employed the respondent as a plumber is falsified by their contradictory versions. It was further submitted that the findings of the Tribunal that the respondent was a workman and that he sustained injuries during the course of employment is a question of fact and the Appellate Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner. 7. In his evidence, claimant has categorically stated that on 20.07.1996, during the course of his employment with the appellants, while he was working in the first floor, ladder has slipped, causing in grievous injuries in the right hand, due to which, he sustained fracture and that he is not able to raise his right hand beyond certain point. 8. Case of appellants is one of total denial, contending that they never employed the respondent as a plumber and that he has taken a few motors for repair some time back. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent, there are contradictory versions in the evidence of P.W.s 1 to 3 regarding the nature of employment of the respondent. In his evidence, RW-1 has stated that the respondent was engaged as a coolie for a few days while RW-2 has admitted that the respondent was employed as a plumber. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent, there are contradictory versions in the evidence of P.W.s 1 to 3 regarding the nature of employment of the respondent. In his evidence, RW-1 has stated that the respondent was engaged as a coolie for a few days while RW-2 has admitted that the respondent was employed as a plumber. RW-3 has also stated that the respondent was assigned work and on the date of accident, respondent had worked in the house of the first appellant. The contradictory versions in the evidence of R.W.s 1 to 3 would show that the respondent was employed by the appellants. That apart, unless the respondent had been employed, the appellants would not have handed over pump motor to get it repaired. 9. Even in their counter, the appellants have totally denied employing the claimant. They have alleged that the claimant was employed only for contingency work in their residence and he was not a workman in connection with the employment, trade or business. 10. The finding that respondent was employed by the appellants and was a workman, is a finding of fact. Equally, the finding that during the course of employment, the respondent had fallen down from the ladder and sustained injuries in his right hand is a finding of fact. In my considered view, such finding of fact not being vitiated by error of law, does not warrant interference. 11. After the accident, the respondent was admitted in Government Hospital as inpatient, where he had taken treatment for nearly one month. Subsequently, the respondent was admitted in Ramachandra Medical College where he had taken treatment for nearly one week. The claimant had also stated that he had been to Puthur five times for bone setting. In his evidence, PW-2 Dr.Thiagarajan has also stated that the movements of the right hand are restricted and that the claimant/workman is unable to lift his right hand. PW-2 Dr.Thiagarajan has also stated that claimant has sustained fracture in the ulna bone and rod is fixed. As per the Schedule I Part II, Sl.No.9, percentage of loss of earning capacity is 60%. If the injury received by the workman is a scheduled injury, minimum compensation which the workman would be entitled to claim would commensurate with the loss of earning capacity, as indicated in the schedule. 12. As per the Schedule I Part II, Sl.No.9, percentage of loss of earning capacity is 60%. If the injury received by the workman is a scheduled injury, minimum compensation which the workman would be entitled to claim would commensurate with the loss of earning capacity, as indicated in the schedule. 12. The finding of the Commissioner that the respondent was in the employment of the appellants, is a finding of fact based on evidence. Appellants were unable to point out any material warranting reversal of finding based on appreciation of factual aspects. No question of law much less substantial question of law is shown to be involved in this appeal. The appeal is devoid of substance and is bound to fail. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the Award dated 24.09.2001 passed in WC No.8/1999 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Teynampet, Chennai-6 is confirmed. No costs.