Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2674 (MAD)

Murugan @ Murugesan (Died) v. P. S. Sakthivel

2022-08-12

P.T.ASHA

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order dated 17.05.2017 made in W.C.No.133 of 2013 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Authority under the Workmen Compensation Act) Salem.) 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order made in W.C.No.133 of 2013, dated 17.05.2017 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Authority under the Workmen Compensation Act) Salem. 2. The facts in brief are as follows :- (i) The original applicant/petitioner Murugan was working as a Driver with the first opposite party in the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-01-C-2950. The said vehicle was transporting plywood from the State of Kerala and the said Murugan along with another driver by name Palanisamy, S/o. Sellappan had loaded the vehicle with plywood from Perambavur, Kerala and were proceeding towards Surat, Gujarat. (ii) On 23.10.2012, the said Murugan had driven the lorry and had parked the lorry at about 07.00 a.m. opposite to S.Kumar lorry office in Surat and when he got down from the lorry, he had slipped, as a result of which, he had sustained serious injuries and he rushed to a private hospital at Surat, there he had taken treatment for three days and the employer had arranged to fly him to KG Hospital, Coimbatore. The said Murugan was admitted as an in-patient on 27.10.2012 and he had also undergone a surgery on 01.11.2012 and he was discharged on 12.11.2012. After the discharge, he had developed a haemorrhage and was admitted in Lotus Hospital, Erode, from where, he was shifted to KG Hospital, Coimbatore. The surgery was once again performed and the blood clot in his brain was removed, for which, he had incurred a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards his medical expenses. Since there was a recurrence on his ailment, the petitioner had taken treatment at the CMC Hospital, Vellore, thereafter, at Right Cure Hospital and also at the Voluntarily Health Service, Chennai. (iii) The said Murugan would submit that the accident had occurred during the course of employment and therefore, he was entitled to be compensated. He had claimed a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. Pending the application, he passed away and his legal representative, namely his mother, who is the appellant herein, was brought on record, since he was a bachelor. (iii) The said Murugan would submit that the accident had occurred during the course of employment and therefore, he was entitled to be compensated. He had claimed a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. Pending the application, he passed away and his legal representative, namely his mother, who is the appellant herein, was brought on record, since he was a bachelor. (iv) The first respondent had filed a counter admitting to the fact that the said Murugan had worked with them and the vehicle was insured with the second respondent and therefore, it is for the second respondent to compensate the petitioner. (v) The second respondent had filed a counter denying the fact that the petitioner had sustained injuries in the course of his employment. Further, it is submitted that the death was not on account of the injury sustained and there was no nexus between the death and the injuries sustained in the accident. Therefore, they sought for the dismissal of the application. (vi) The Commissioner, on considering the facts on record has dismissed the claim petition in W.C.No.133 of 2013 stating that there was no nexus between the injuries and the death. 3. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the deceased Murugan had sustained the injuries on 23.10.2012 at Surat. He was admitted at the hospital at Surat, from where, he was discharged and the first respondent had shifted him to Coimbatore by air. 5. It appears that three surgeries have been conducted for the deceased on account of the recurrence of his aliment, he had suffered the following injuries : “Left Frontal ICH with IVH, ASDH right cerebello pontine angle, right temporal lobe cortical contusion and SAH” 6. The records would show that on 01.11.2012, the deceased had undergone the following surgery :- “left frontal craniectomy, Dura opened, the liquid clot evacuated from the brain” 7. It is also seen that once again, the deceased had been admitted and the blood clot from his brain had been removed. The deceased passed away on 28.02.2015. 8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the death was only on account of the injuries sustained. 9. It is also seen that once again, the deceased had been admitted and the blood clot from his brain had been removed. The deceased passed away on 28.02.2015. 8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the death was only on account of the injuries sustained. 9. Per contra, Mr.M.B.Raghavan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent/Insurance Company would submit that the said Murugan had died nearly three years after the accident and there is nothing to show that the death was on account of the injuries. Therefore, the order has to be sustained. 10. Heard the counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record. 11. The nature of the injuries sustained and the fact that the deceased has undergone three surgeries and frequent hospitalization prior to his death, clearly indicates that the death has occurred only on account of the injuries that he had sustained. Therefore, the finding of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour that the claimant is not entitled to compensation, since the death was not on account of the injuries sustained cannot be countenanced. 12. That apart, the petitioner has incurred medical expenses to the tune of Rs.11,48,000/-. Therefore, the appellant is awarded with the following compensation :- Heads Award by this Court (Amount in Rs.) Loss of Income (Rs.8,000/- x 215.28 x 60/100) 10,33,344 Funeral Expenses 5,000 Medical Bills 11,48,000 Total 21,86,344 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the second respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the sum of Rs.21,86,350/- (rounded off) to the credit of W.C.No.133 of 2013 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Authority under the Workmen Compensation Act) Salem, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the award amount, along with proportionate interest, less, the amount, if any already withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs in the present appeal.