AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.S. Karnan, J.—The applicants submitted that the (deceased) Suresh, aged about 28 years was working as a Mason under the 1st
Opposite Party and he was paid Rs. 200/- per day. On 27.04.2007, at about 11.00 a.m., when the deceased was working as Mason at VIT Girls
Hostel building, he fell down from the building and sustained injuries and succumbed to it. Hence, the case has been filed against the 1st opposite
party and the Insurance Company. The 1st Opposite party had filed a counter statement. He had admitted the employment of deceased stating that
the deceased was working as a Mason under him and was carrying out cement plastering work on the inner and outer walls of the building and that
the accident had been caused while he was doing his duty. The respondent further stated that he was a contractor and taken a policy for seven of
his workers with the Insurance Company.
The 2nd respondent/New India Assurance Company had filed counter statement and resisted the compensation petition. The averments in the
claim regarding employment of deceased with 1st opposite party was not admitted. Further, the 1st opposite party had taken policy to extent
coverage of insurance for 5 persons only, but as per complaint, it had been mentioned that 30 persons were involved in building construction work.
Further, the deceased has been under the influence of alcohol while he was working and as such the policy conditions had been violated and
therefore, the Insurance Company not liable to pay compensation. Further, the 2nd respondent had engaged the deceased only occasionally on
meagre wages.
On considering the averments of all parties, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour had framed four issues namely (1) Whether the deceased had
expired due to injuries sustained in the accident while he was working for the 1st opposite party? (2) What is the age and wages of the deceased?
(3) What is the quantum of compensation the applicants are entitled to get? (4) Who is liable to pay the compensation?
On the side of the claimants, one witness was examined and 7 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P7 namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R.; Ex.P2-
Postmortem report; Ex.P3-Group Insurance policy; Ex.P4-Advocate Notice; Ex.P5-Reply of 1st opposite party; Ex.P6-Ration card; and Ex.P7-
Legal heir certificate. On the side of the respondents, the 1st opposite party was examined as RW1 and 4 documents were marked as Exhibits R1
to R4 namely: Ex.R1-Letter to 2nd opposite party; Ex.R2-Accident report; Ex.R3-Insurance policy; and Ex.R4-Conditions of policy.
PW2, had adduced evidence that the deceased was his son and he was aged about 28 years. On 27.04.2007, at about 11.00 a.m., when he
was erecting the scaffolding around the building at the eighth floor, he lost his balance and fell down and as a result, sustained injuries and he had
expired while he was taken to hospital.
RW1, had adduced evidence that his construction company was named as B & B Builders. He had entered into an agreement with the V.I.T.
Educational Institution for constructing International ladies hostel. While, the deceased was doing construction work on 27.04.2007, at the eighth
floor of the said building, he had lost his balance and fell down. He deposed that he was working as a Mason under him.
On considering the evidence of the witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by them, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour had
awarded a sum of Rs. 4,26,080/- as compensation to the claimants. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour had directed the Insurance Company to
pay the said compensation amount. Against the said order, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal. The highly competent counsel
argued that the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour had awarded a sum of Rs. 4,26,080/- without any legal basis. The learned counsel further
submits that one Balakrishnan, Senior Assistant, who was attached to the Insurance Company had adduced evidence and marked exhibits but the
Deputy Commissioner of Labour had completely over looked the entire evidence of RW1. The impugned order does not contain the evidence of
RW2. The employer had engaged 30 workmen for the purpose of constructing the building, but the policy had been taken to cover the risk of 5
employees only. As such, there is a violation of policy conditions by both the employer and employee. The learned counsel further submits that
there was no income proof and birth proof of the deceased for assessing the compensation. As such, the case has not been established in a proper
manner and as such there is lacuna in the impugned order.
The very competent counsel for the applicants argued that the deceased was aged about 28 years and he was engaged as a Mason with the 1st
Opposite party for constructing a girls hostel at V.I.T. Educational Institution, on 27.04.2007 at about 11.00 a.m., while the deceased was in the
process of carrying out erection of scaffolding around the 8th floor of the building for cement plastering, he lost his balance and fell down from the
eighth floor. The accident had been registered in Cr. No. 155 of 2007, on the file of Katpadi Police Station. The learned Deputy Commissioner of
Labour had fixed the age of the deceased as 28 years on the basis of postmortem certificate and liability had been fastened on the Insurance
Company, since the 1st opposite party''s construction company had taken Group Insurance policy for their employees. Accordingly, the Insurance
Company is liable to pay compensation. The very competent counsel further pointed out that the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour had
framed four issues and decided the same in favour of the applicants, after recording evidence and on perusing the documents marked by them. The
Tribunal had fixed the multiplier factor on the basis of age and also fixed the income of the deceased as per minimum wages act and computed the
compensation. Therefore, there is no shortcomings in the decision of the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour. The 1st applicant is the wife of
the deceased, the 2nd applicant is the aged father of the deceased and the 3rd applicant is the unmarried sister of the deceased. The deceased was
the only earning member in his family. Hence, the highly competent counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the above appeal.
The very competent counsel for the 4th respondent submits that the 4th respondent is the Principal employer and he is running a construction
company in the name and style of B & B Builders, which had been insured with the appellant herein under a Group Insurance Policy scheme,
which was in force at the time of accident. Further, it is an admitted fact that the deceased was engaged in construction work on 27.04.2007. In
the course of doing his work under the employment of the 1st opposite party, the accident had taken place. Therefore, the 1st opposite party is not
liable to pay compensation as per the rightful findings of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour.
On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on all sides, this Court does not find any
shortcomings in the conclusions arrived at regarding death of the deceased, while he was involved in the construction work under the employment
of the 1st opposite party and that the employees of the 1st opposite party had been covered under a Insurance policy with the appellant herein.
Further, the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour had assessed the compensation on the basis of age and income of the deceased. Therefore,
the findings given by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour is an appropriate one and it has been decided on the basis of oral and
documentary facts. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the above appeal. Therefore, the impugned order passed in W.C. No. 421 of
2007, on the file of Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai-6, dated 12.12.2008 is found to be fit enough to be operated upon.
As per this Court records, it is seen that the entire compensation amount has been deposited by the appellant herein. Now, all the applicants
are at liberty to withdraw their apportioned share amount, with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of W.C. No. 421 of 2007, on the file of
the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai-6, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order and after identification of the applicants by
their learned counsel. This Court further directs the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour, to disburse the said compensation amount, at once,
after complying with the above observations. In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the award passed in W.C. No. 421 of
2007, on the file of Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai-6, dated 12.12.2008, is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.