Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

T.T.KELAPPAN versus KELUKUTTY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


T.T.KELAPPAN v. KELUKUTTY - MFA No. 1170 of 1999 [2007] RD-KL 8804 (28 May 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MFA No. 1170 of 1999()

1. T.T.KELAPPAN
... Petitioner

Vs

1. KELUKUTTY
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.THOMAS ANTONY

For Respondent :SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN

Dated :28/05/2007

O R D E R

J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ.

M.F.A.No.1170 OF 1999 Dated 28th May, 2007

JUDGMENT

Koshy,J

. Appellant and his wife are Government employees. There are about five coconut trees in their compound. The respondent, in the course of employment while climbing the trees, sustained injuries and he claimed compensation. The Commissioner awarded compensation exparte. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the above award stating that the award was passed without issuing notice to him. This court allowed the writ petition on payment of Rs.5,000/= as cost. The cost was paid and the case was restored to file. Contention of the appellant is that the Commissioner passed a fresh award granting Rs.2,642/= with 6% interest from the date of accident. It is also contended that the respondent was a self employed person and even if he is an employee, he is a casual employee as he was not employed for the business of the appellant. The appellant is a Government employee and he has no coconut plantation. However, the amount ordered to be paid without interest was deposited before the Commissioner. Considering the definition of `workman' at the time of application, a casual employee not employed for the purpose of business is excluded. Here, he is not employed for the MFA.1170/1999 2 business of the appellant and he is only a casual employee. In any event, Rs.5,000/= was already given to the respondent while setting aside the exparte order and now Rs.2,460/= was also deposited. On the facts of this case, the amount deposited can be disbursed to the respondent. No further amount need be deposited by the appellant. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. J.B.KOSHY

JUDGE

K.P.BALACHANDRAN

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.