Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 3047 (MAD)

Divisional Manager v. Thiruppathi

2017-09-06

J.NISHA BANU

body2017
JUDGMENT : J. Nisha Banu, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the award, dated 07.09.2011 passed in W.C. No. 51 of 2007 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Madurai. 2. The appellant is the second respondent in W.C. No. 51 of 2007. The first respondent herein filed the said petition claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him, in the accident occurred on 08.10.2005 at about 04.45 a.m, during the course of employment as a Driver under the services of the second respondent/owner. 3. Before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, the first respondent/claimant examined two witnesses as P.Ws. 1 and 2 and marked four documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. The appellant did not let in any oral or documentary evidences. 4. After considering all the materials and evidences, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, held that the accident happened in the course of employment by the injured as a Driver and since the vehicle is insured with the appellant/Insurance Company, directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,23,293/- 5. Challenging the said award, the appellant/Insurance Company has preferred this appeal challenging the quantum as well as the liability. 6. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law have been framed: “1. Whether the risk of the deceased work men is covered under the insurance policy is sued by the appellant? ; and 2. Whether the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner can assess the loss of earning capacity with out the assistance of the assessment made by qualified medical practitioner regarding the loss of earning capacity? 7. Though various grounds have been raised in the grounds of appeal, at the time of making arguments, the learned counsel restricted his argument only to the aspect of quantum and submitted that the injuries sustained by the first respondent are non-scheduled injuries and there is no disability at all and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner erred in fixing 32% as loss of earning capacity and therefore, the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner, warrants interference at the hands of this Court. 8. Heard the submissions made and perused the materials available on record. 9. Paragraph No. 11 of the award reads as follows: IN OTHER LANGUAGE 10. 8. Heard the submissions made and perused the materials available on record. 9. Paragraph No. 11 of the award reads as follows: IN OTHER LANGUAGE 10. In view of the above, it is seen that after considering the evidences only, the Deputy Commissioner has fixed the disability and has come to the right conclusion and directed the appellant to pay the compensation, I do not any infirmity in the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner and hence, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the respondents. 11. In the result, (i)This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award dated 07.09.2011 made in W.C. No. 51 of 2007 by the Commissioner(Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Madurai, is hereby confirmed. The appellant is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interests and costs, if not already deposited, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (ii) Since the first respondent/claimant died, on such deposit being made by the Insurance Company, the Deputy Commissioner shall disburse the award amount to the legal heirs of the deceased, after following the procedure contemplated under Law. 12. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.