Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1890 (MAD)

S. Duraisamy v. Bose (Died)

2018-06-19

J.NISHA BANU

body2018
JUDGMENT : As the issue involved in both the cases is one and the same, they are disposed of by way of this common judgment. 2. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Madurai, in E.C.No.163 of 2010, dated 20.05.2015, the appellant/respondent has filed C.M.A.(MD)No.1238 of 2015. 3. On the other hand, the claimants, being dissatisfied with the sum of Rs.3,26,495/- awarded by the learned Commissioner, have filed CROS.OBJ(MD)No.4 of 2016, seeking enhancement. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as per their rank in C.M.A.(MD)No.1238 of 2015. 5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the records carefully. It is stated that the sixth claimant, namely, Kathayee, died and to that effect, a memo dated 20.04.2016 has been filed. 6. It is a case of fatal. The accident occurred on 12.05.2004 and in consequence to the same, the victim, namely, Bose, died on 08.02.2006, during the pendency of the claim petition. Though the appeal was admitted on several substantial questions of law, the appellant, now, laid emphasize only on the following substantial questions of law:- Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is right in awarding the compensation to the claimants, when they have not produced any documentary evidence regarding the alleged accident? Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is right in fixing the liability on the appellant, when there is no employer-employee relationship? 7. Perusal of record shows that P.W.2, in her evidence, has deposed as follows: xxxxxx 8. It is also seen from the records that P.W.3, the Doctor, who treated the deceased, has deposed as follows: xxxxxx Moreover, in his cross examination, P.W.3 has specifically deposed that the deceased died in consequence to the accident in question. 9. Perusal of records would further go to show that the appellant, in the first portion of his deposition, has stated that the accident in question has never taken place at all. However, on the second portion of his deposition, he has stated that the deceased was admitted in an hospital, where he became alright and he was discharged from the hospital. From the deposition of the appellant as well as P.W.2 & P.W.3, this Court is able to conclude that the accident had taken place at that time and therefore, there exist a master servant relationship, as rightly held by the Commissioner. From the deposition of the appellant as well as P.W.2 & P.W.3, this Court is able to conclude that the accident had taken place at that time and therefore, there exist a master servant relationship, as rightly held by the Commissioner. Moreover, as the appellant himself admit the accident, according to this Court, there is no necessity to adduce evidences to that effect. 10. Since the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant are answered against him, the civil miscellaneous appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. Insofar as the cross objection petition is concerned, it is seen that the learned Commissioner, taking into account the year of accident; the monthly income of the deceased; and all other factors, has awarded a decent sum, which, in the opinion of this Court, is very reasonable and the same does not warrant any interference for enhancement. 12. In view of the foregoing discussions, both the civil miscellaneous appeal as well as cross objection fail and they are accordingly dismissed. The award passed by the learned Commissioner stands confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.