BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19/07/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SATHASIVAM C.M.A.(MD) No.814 of 2006 United India Insurance Co.Ltd., through its Branch Manager, 2nd Floor, A.R.Complex Near Daily Thanthi, 1090, Poonamalee High Road, Chennai - 84. .. Appellant vs. 1.P.Senthilkumar 2.State of Tamilnadu rep. by its District Collector, Madurai. 3.M/s. Royal Decors, 101, Ramalingam Colony, MTP Road, Coimbatore - 43. .. Respondents Appeal preferred under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the order dated 24.1.2006 passed in W.C.No.121 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Madurai. !For appellant ... Mr.G. Prabhu Rajadurai ^For 1st respondent ... Mr.S.Nassar :JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation
(Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Madurai dated 24.1.2006 made in W.C.No.121 of
2004, United India Insurance Co.Ltd., filed the above appeal.
2. Questioning the said order, the learned counsel for the appellant
raised the following two contentions.
Firstly, though the applicant has stated that he was 27 years old and in
the evidence according to him, he was 26 years old, the Commissioner based on
the reference made in the Accident Register Ex.A.1, fixed the age of the injured
man as 24 years.
3. First of all, it is not in dispute that the age of the injured man is
not a relevant factor. Even other wise, the Commissioner has followed the age
as noted in Ex.A.1, which is the Accident Register. Accordingly, I reject his
contention.
4. By relying on Ex.A.9 – Copy of the Insurance Policy, it is contended
that in the light of the fact that provision is there for Rs.110/- per day as
wages payable to the workman, the Commissioner is not justified in fixing the
monthly wages of the applicant as Rs.3,902/-.
5. On going through the materials placed, I am unable to accept the said
contention.
6. Admittedly, the appellant/United India Insurance Company did not
specifically raise this objection in the counter statement filed before the said
authority. No doubt, the copy of the policy of insurance has been marked as
Ex.A.9. However, unless and until the specific defence is taken in the form of
counter statement, the Commissioner cannot be faulted with. In fact, the
Commissioner in the absence of documentary evidence regarding the wages, taking
note of the fact that the workman concerned with construction wing and based on
G.O. (2D) 29, Labour and Employment Department dated 24.4.2000, fixed the
monthly wage of the applicant as Rs.3,902/-p.m. The method adopted by the
Commissioner cannot be faulted with. In such circumstances, I am unable to
accept the second contention also.
7. In the light of what is stated above, there is no substantial question
of law for consideration by this Court. The Appeal fails and the same is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2006 is closed.
asvm
To
Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner,
(The Deputy Commissioner of Labour),
Madurai.