Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 966 (MAD)

M. P. Selvaraj v. N. Shanthi

2015-02-17

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2015
Judgment :- 1. The appellant was employed in a Government Department and he constructed a house in Madurai. While he was constructing the house, there was an accident on 30.07.2004 at 11.30 a.m. There was a fire accident while the first respondent's husband, viz. Natarajan was involved in the plastering work of the house. 2. The aforesaid fact is not disputed by the appellant. The fact that the said Natarajan got injured in the fire accident, on 30.07.2004, out of and in the course of employment, is also not in dispute. Ultimately, he succumbed to injuries on 08.08.2004, though he was admitted in the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai immediately as in-patient and treatment was given. The legal heirs of the deceased Natarajan filed W.C.No.197 of 2006 claiming compensation. 3. On the side of the claimants, the first claimant / wife of the deceased got examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. The appellant herein, who was the respondent in W.C.No.197 of 2006, was examined as R.W.1 and two documents, viz. Exs.R1 and R2 were marked. Exs.R1 and R2 are relating to the loan obtained by the appellant for constructing the house. 4. The defence of the appellant before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner was that the deceased Natarajan was not employed by him, but he was employed by one Contractor by name Murugan. No document was marked before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner relating to the contract between the appellant and the said Murugan. Even now, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was no written contract. Further the wife of the deceased has deposed that her husband was employed by the appellant. Ex.A3 – Lawyer's notice was sent to the appellant by the counsel for the claimants stating about the employment of the deceased with the appellant and the death due to accident that arose out of and in the course of employment with the appellant. Ex.A4 is the Acknowledgement Card for having received the notice. But the appellant did not chose to reply to the same. As stated above, he did not produce any contract. Even now, it is stated that there is no written contract. No other particulars relating to the said Murugan is given. In fact, in the counter statement filed before the Commissioner, it is stated that it was Velmurugan under whom the deceased was employed. 5. As stated above, he did not produce any contract. Even now, it is stated that there is no written contract. No other particulars relating to the said Murugan is given. In fact, in the counter statement filed before the Commissioner, it is stated that it was Velmurugan under whom the deceased was employed. 5. In these circumstances, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation recorded a finding of fact that the deceased was employed by the appellant and directed the appellant to pay compensation. I do not find any infirmity with the same. Hence, the appeal fails and accordingly it is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 6. The first claimant is permitted to withdraw her share from the amount deposited before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Madurai. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour is directed to deposit the balance amount in any one of the Nationalised Banks in a fixed deposit, initially for a period of three years and renewed periodically, till the minors attain majority. The first claimant, who is the mother and guardian of the minors, is permitted to withdraw the interest once in three months from the bank directly, which shall be utilised for the benefit and welfare of the minors.