Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

TRIKKANDIYOOR P.C.C.M. SOCIETY LTD. versus K.SAIDALIKUTTY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


TRIKKANDIYOOR P.C.C.M. SOCIETY LTD. v. K.SAIDALIKUTTY - MFA No. 1256 of 1998(B) [2007] RD-KL 13306 (17 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MFA No. 1256 of 1998(B)

1. TRIKKANDIYOOR P.C.C.M. SOCIETY LTD.,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. K.SAIDALIKUTTY
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.MOHAMMED ASHARAF

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

Dated :17/07/2007

O R D E R

J.B.KOSHY & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.

M.F.A.No.1256 OF 1998 Dated 17th July, 2007

JUDGMENT

Koshy,J.

First respondent filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation claiming that he met with an accident in the course of his employment by which he sustained very serious injuries. He claimed that his wages was Rs.3,000/=. Commissioner fixed monthly wages as Rs.2,000/=. The Commissioner relying on Ext.A1 found that his age was 41. On a detailed consideration of the evidence, as a finding of fact, it was found that the accident occurred during the course of employment and he is the workman employed by the appellant. The compensation was awarded for 10% disability. The Commissioner calculated the compensation as follows:

"Rs.2,000 x 60 x 10 x 181.37 = 21,764.4" 100 x 100 It is contended that the claimant was employed through a contractor and, therefore, appellant is not liable. It was MFA.1256/1998 2 found from evidence that the claimant was employed by the appellant itself. Contractor's name is not mentioned by the appellant. Further, as principal employer also he is liable to pay the compensation even if the claimant was employed through a contractor. In any event, the appellant was paying wages. The injured was working in the establishment of the appellant and he was employed by the appellant. Finding of the Commissioner that he was employed by the appellant is a finding of fact based on evidence. However, we note that the accident occurred on 21.6.1994, but, Commissioner calculated compensation on the basis of the the amended Act. Supreme Court in K.S.E.B. V. Valsala (AIR 1999 SC 3502) held that the compensation has to be calculated as per the provisions of the Act on the date of accident. The Workmen's Compensation Act was amended by Act 30/1995 with effect from 15.9.1995. Therefore, maximum wages that can be taken into account at the time of accident is only Rs.1,000/= and compensation has to be calculated as follows: Rs.1,000 x 50 x 10 x 181.37 = 9068.5 100 x 100 Since the award was passed after amendment of the Act, claimant (first respondent) is entitled to get the amount MFA.1256/1998 3 with 12% interest from the date of accident (21.6.1994) till the date of deposit i.e. 1.9.1998. The above amount should be disbursed to him after deducting the amount already paid. Balance amount should be returned to the appellant. The appeal is allowed. J.B.KOSHY

JUDGE

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN 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.