IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 06.08.2010 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN C.M.A. No. 107 of 2007 and M.P. No. 1 of 2007 M/s. United India Insurance Co Ltd C.S. Complex 3rd Floor 139, Kumaran Road Tirupur .. Appellant/ 2nd Respondent Versus 1. Tmt. Saroja 2. Minor. Roopesh rep by his mother next friend Smt. Saroja 3. Tmt. Kanagammal ...Respondents/ Petitioners 4. M/s. Shanthi Hatcharies 38, Trichy Road Palladam .. Respondent/ 1st Respondent Appeal under Section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 against the award and decree dated 31.03.2006 made in W.C. No. 16 of 2005 on the file of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Tribunal, DCL, Coimbatore. For Appellant : Mr. S, Arunkumar For Respondents : No appearance for R1 to R3 Mr. M. Kamalanathan for R4 JUDGMENT The Insurance company has come forward with this appeal aggrieved by the quantum of compensation of Rs.3,03,641/- awarded by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore under the Workmen's Compensation Act for the death of the deceased Suresh Kumar during the course of his employment with the fourth respondent herein. 2. At the time of admission of this appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been framed for consideration namely:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ i) Whether the Commissioner of Labour can award compensation to person not coming under the purview of Workman as defined under Section 2 (n) of the Act? ii) Whether the Authority has jurisdiction to entertain the above claim? Iii) Whether the Deputy Commissioner of Labour was right in awarding compensation contrary to Section 3 (1) of the Act? 3. The facts which gave rise for filing the claim petition by the claimants/ respondents 1 to 3 herein was that the deceased Suresh Kumar is the husband of the first respondent herein; father of the minor second respondent and son of the third respondent. The deceased was employed as a driver of mini lorry owned by the fourth respondent herein which was insured with the appellant insurance company. The deceased used to carry broiler chickens and broiler parent calls in the lorry to various places as per the directions of his employer. While so, on 17.03.2002 when the deceased was driving the lorry bearing Registration No. TN 39 Q 0625 towards Coimbatore from Chennai, near Padiri Village, when the deceased attempted to overtake a cart in front of the vehicle, lost balance, dashed against a tree in the right side of the road. In the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his ankles and right foot. The deceased was taken to the Villupuram Government Hospital and he was treated there till 19.03.2002 i.e., for three days. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore for treatment and admitted on 20.03.202 and he was given treatment till 27.04.2002 as an inpatient. During the course of such treatment, the deceased suffered from jaundice in its advanced stage which was caused due to the nature of his work in carrying broiler chicken and broiler parent calls to the markets. Subsequently, on 21.05.2002, the said Suresh Kumar died at Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore. According to the claimants, the deceased was the sole bread winner. He was aged 35 years at the time of his death and was earning Rs.2,300/- per month as salary. Under those circumstance, the claim petition was filed by the claimants, claiming a sum of Rs.1,97,060/- as compensation. 4. The claim petition was resisted by the insurance company as well as the employer of the claimant namely the fourth respondent herein before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the deceased died on 21.05.2002 and his death cannot be attributed to the accident which took place on 17.03.2002, therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. As per Section 3 (1) of the Act, the petition filed before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour by invoking the provisions of Workmen Compensation Act is not sustainable. 6. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the claimants/respondents would contend that the accident is admitted and the employer and employee relationship is also admitted and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ therefore it is for the employee to prove that the death was mainly by the accident. It is evident from the death certificate issued to the deceased Suresh Kumar that he succumbed to the injuries due to septinemic. It is the case of the claimants that he sustained injuries in the accident, but it has not cured and it caused septicemic which has caused the death of the deceased and it is the root cause for his death. When the root cause of the death of the deceased is the accident in which he suffered injuries, the claimants have discharged their burden and fulfilled all the requirements under Section 3 (1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Therefore, according to the claimants, the award passed by the Commissioner of Labour is justified and there is no need for interference by this Court. 7. Heard the counsel for both sides. It is not in dispute that the deceased Suresh Kumar was employed under the fourth respondent herein and the employer and employee relationship between them is admitted. The date, time and nature of accident is also admitted. 8. On reading of the evidence available on record, it is seen that the accident took place on 17.03.2002 in which the deceased sustained injuries in the nature of fracture in the right ankle etc., He was admitted in the Government Hospital for three days and thereafter he was taken to Ramakrishna Hospital at Coimbatore for better management. When we consider the death certificate Ex.P2 issued by Ramakrishna Mission Hospital, Coimbatore it is categorically stated therein that the deceased was admitted on 20.03.2002 as an in-patient and on 21.05.2002, he died i.e., within a period of less than two months from the date of accident. The cause of the death is to be analysed here. As per the death certificate, because of septicemia, the deceased died. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the claimant, the wound, which was sustained by the claimant namely fracture did not heal properly and inspite of the treatment, it formed as a septic and it resulted in the death of the deceased, which is the root cause for his death, which emanated only from the injury sustained by the claimant in the accident. It is not the case of the employer or the insurance company that septicemia mentioned in the death certificate is false and it was not in existence or it has caused the death of the deceased. No other evidence has been placed by the insurance company to establish the intervening cause of death of the deceased. In the absence of such evidence, the Court has to give the benefit of doubt only in favour of the deceased. Therefore, I hold that the deceased died only due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, which occurred during the course of his employment with the fourth respondent and that the claimants have satisfactorily fulfilled the requirements contemplated under Section 3 (1) of the Act. Therefore, question Nos. 1 and 2 are answred in favour of the claimants and consequently, the appellant/insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount. 9. It is seen from the records that the age of the deceased as well as his income were not disputed either by the fourth https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent or by the appellant before The Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation. Moreover, the first claimant examined herself as a witness before the Commissioner and deposed that the deceased was working with the fourth respondent herein and he was earning monthly salary apart from regular batta. Therefore, the Commissioner, by applying the multiplier method as contemplated under the Act has awarded the compensation amount, which in my opinion is fair and reasonable. Therefore, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner is hereby confirmed. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. In view of the fact that there was no representation for the claimant before this Court, the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation is directed to disburse the compensation amount to the claimants on proper verification and identification. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. rsh To 1. The Commissioner Workmen's Compensation Tribunal Coimbatore. 2. The Section Officer VR Section, High Court, Madras 1 cc to Mr.M. Kamalanathan, Advocate, Sr. 57937 1 cc to Mr.S. Arunkumar, Advocate, Sr. 57947 CMA No. 107 of 2007 SGL (CO) kk 20/9 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/