Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

V.K. RAGHAVAN, VAYALIL HOUSE versus THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


V.K. RAGHAVAN, VAYALIL HOUSE v. THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S - MFA No. 587 of 2003(V) [2006] RD-KL 3413 (13 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MFA No. 587 of 2003(V)

1. V.K. RAGHAVAN, VAYALIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S
... Respondent

2. I.P. DAS, S/O. PALA, IYKKARA HOUSE,

For Petitioner :SRI.C.C.THOMAS

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR

Dated :13/12/2006

O R D E R

J.B.KOSHY & K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JJ.

M.F.A.NO.587 OF 2003 Dated 13th December, 2006

JUDGMENT

Koshy,J

. Second respondent in this case, a coconut tree climber and toddy tapper, employed by the appellant, met with a serious accident as he fell from a coconut tree. As a result of the accident, he sustained serious injuries as can be seen from Exts.A1 and A5 medical certificates. Ext.A4 shows that he was an employee of the appellant, but, he was denied benefit from the Kerala Tree Climbers Benefit Scheme as he was engaged in the tapping of toddy. The appellant was the licencee. AW3 deposed that accident occurred while tapping coconut tree in his property and tree was leased to the appellant for tapping toddy. Merely because he was not enrolled as a member of the Welfare Fund Scheme as he was a temporary employee, workmen's compensation benefit cannot be denied. Finding of the Commissioner that second respondent met with the accident during the course of employment under the appellant is based on evidence adduced in this case. The loss of earning capacity was also arrived at by the Commissioner on the basis of the MFA.587/2003 2 medical certificate produced and since it is a finding of fact, no appeal will lie under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act as there is no substantial question of law. Apart from the above, it is seen that the required prior deposit of compensation is not made. Therefore, the appeal itself is not maintainable. The appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY

JUDGE

K.PADMANABHAN NAIR

JUDGE

tks


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.