IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :: 09-11-2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ C.M.A.NPD.No.3501 OF 2005 V.K.Govindaraj ... Appellant -vs-
1. Andre D' Sovza
2. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Vijay Complex, No.3, Blackers Road, Chennai-600 002. ... Respondents Appeal against the order, dated 16.12.2004, passed in W.C.No.74 of 2004 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-II - cum- Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai-6.
For appellants : Mr.S.Ramachandran For respondent 2 : Mr.S.Manohar JUDGMENT The injured claimant, aggrieved over the insufficient compensation awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, has preferred this appeal.
2. According to the appellant/claimant, he was working as Driver and earning a sum of Rs.6000/- per month. In the accident, which took place on 02.11.2001, he suffered severe injuries and underwent treatment. Pursuant to the accident, he suffered 100% disability, as he could not drive the vehicle any further. The insurance corporation, inter alia, denied all the averments. The authority below has framed two issues as to whether the claimant is an employee under the first respondent and had suffered injuries out of and during the course of employment and as to whether the compensation is to be awarded.
3. On the side of claimant, two witnesses were examined and six documents marked. On the side of respondent, no witness was examined nor any document marked.
4. Considering Exs.W-1,W-2,W-4,W-5 and W-6, the authority has found that there was an accident and the claimant suffered injuries out of the same and, therefore, the respondent was liable to pay compensation. Since the first respondent employer is covered by insurance of the second respondent, a direction was issued to the second respondent to pay compensation. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimant has not produced any documentary evidence to show his earning capacity. Therefore, on the basis of the Government Order viz., G.O.(2D) 102, Labour and Employment Department, dated 23.09.1999, the basic salary of the injured was fixed at Rs.1781/-, D.A.at 1232.56 and the total emoluments were at Rs.3013.56 per month. As regards disability, relying on the evidence of workman witness WW-2 and considering Exs.W-5 and W-6, the authority fixed the loss of earning capacity at 40%. Applying the factor 189.56 corresponding to the age of the claimant, which is 38, the authority computed the compensation and finally an award was passed for Rs.1,37,100/-. The employee is said to have suffered fracture in the leg. Perusal of the records shows that he was treated at Government Hospital, Belgaum, for six days. Other than this, there is no evidence to establish the disability suffered by him. The authority has fixed 40% disability for loss of earning capacity. I do not find any reason to vary the same, much less to enhance the same to 100%. In the considered opinion of this Court, the authority has arrived at the said conclusion in accordance with law. This Court does not find any infirmity in the said computation. Therefore, the appellant/claimant is not entitled to any enhancement of compensation.
5. However, it is seen from the order that the second respondent insurance company was directed to deposit the award amount within 30 days, failing which, the insurer was put to liability to pay interest at 12% per annum. As per Section 4-A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the claimant is entitled to interest at 12% per annum from 31st day of the accident. Learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that the compensation awarded has already been deposited. In that event, the second respondent is directed to deposit interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the day it fell due i.e., after 30 days of the date of accident till the date of deposit within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the award amount is not deposited as stated above, the second respondent is directed to deposit the award amount along with interest at 12 % per annum within the time stipulated above.
6. With the above observation and direction, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.
Index : Yes/No 09-11-2017 Internet : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking dixit To The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II-cum- Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-II, Chennai-6.
M.GOVINDARAJ,J.
dixit C.M.A.NPD.No.3501 OF 2005 09-11-2017