CMA(MD)/698/2022 of M. Mahendran (Died), 1. Chan Vs Bhuvaneswari on 9 October 2026

J U D G M E N T

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under 30(1) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Trichy, in W.C. No. 170 of 2004, dated 06.04.2022.

2. Brief facts to dispose the appeal is as that one Mr.Vijendran was working under the first respondent Firm for the past 20 years. While he was on duty 07.02.2006 and transporting sand, at about 02.00 pm, the bullock cart driven by one person and his negligence act, the said Vijendran was sustained injuries and he was taken to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital for treatment. After taking treatment at Intensive Care Unit (ICU), he died on 24.05.2003. In this regard a case in Crime No.48 of 2003 was registered at Melattur Police Station. The deceased was 45 years old at that time and was earning Rs.60/- per day as his wages. Since the first respondent therein, Mahendran, who is the owner of the bullock __________

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 05:52:21 pm )

CMA(MD) No. 698 of 2022 cart, engaged the services of Vijendran, he is responsible to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and thereby legal heirs of said Vijendran approached the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Trichy.

3. The allegation contended in the claim petition are denied. The bullock cart driver was charge sheeted, but, the first respondent did not know about anything in the accident. There is delay in filing the F.I.R. Thereby, they denied the nature of accident and prayed for dismissal.

4. After considering the case, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Trichy, has come to a conclusion that the first respondent is liable to pay compensation to the legal heirs of Vijendran. Pending the case, the first respondent Mahendran died, thereby, his legal representatives, viz., the respondents 3 to 6 therein are liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,52,496/- together with cremation expenses of Rs.2,500/- and total a sum of Rs.1,54,996/- and directed them to pay the said amount together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on Rs.1,52,496/-. As far as the cremation amount, no interest was ordered. Against the said order, the respondents 3, 5 and 6 filed this appeal. __________

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 05:52:21 pm )

CMA(MD) No. 698 of 2022

5. When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the appellants argued the case, but, there was no representation for the learned counsel for the respondents.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though the deceased Vijendran was working under the first respondent, as the first respondent died pending before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, the respondents 3 to 6, who are the legal heirs of the deceased first respondent, they are liable to meet out the award. As far as the interest is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the interest at the rate of 12% per annum is excessive, as the first appellant, Chandra, being the wife of the employer, is an elderly person, and the business has been closed. Therefore, she is not in a position to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellants pleaded at the mercy, the interest may be reduced.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. Perused the records. Considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants.

8. In the grounds of appeal, the substantial question of law was raised stating that “whether the Commissioner has been __________

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 05:52:21 pm )

CMA(MD) No. 698 of 2022 awarded the compensation by following the principles of section 4 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923?”

9. Having the appellants admitted their liability, the only contention is that the interest at the rate of 12% per annum may be reduced to substantially.

10. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Trichy, in his impugned order specifically mentioned section 4A(3) of Employees Compensation Act, in which the said sub section (3), particularly in clause (a) which says simple interest thereon may be ordered at the rate of 12% per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on the amount due. The enactment says for simple interest at a minimum rate of 12% per annum or at a higher rate not exceeding the maximum lending rate fixed by the bank. However, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Trichy, ordered only minimum simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs. 1,52,496/-.

11. Though the learned counsel for the appellants attempted to argue for a reduction in the rate of interest, but, The facts reveal __________

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 05:52:21 pm )

CMA(MD) No. 698 of 2022 that the accident occurred on 07.05.2003, and the award was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour on 06.04.2022, nearly 19 years later and during the passage of time, the victim's family sustained lot of difficulties. Though the appellants' business collapsed and their financial position deteriorated, the interest awarded is the minimum rate prescribed under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

12. Though touching to section 4 of the Employee's Compensation Act, substantial question of law raised, no arguments advanced to that aspect. In such view of the matter, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is devoid of merits and dismissed and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Trichy, in W.C. No. 170 of 2004, dated 06.04.2022 is hereby confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Internet:Yes/No 28.10.2026 Index:Yes/No NCC:Yes/No LS __________

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 05:52:21 pm )

CMA(MD) No. 698 of 2022 To

1. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Trichy.

2. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. __________

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 05:52:21 pm )

CMA(MD) No. 698 of 2022 DR. P. MURUGAN, J. LS Pre-delivery Judgment made in C.M.A(MD) No. 698 of 2022 28.10.2026 __________

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 05:52:21 pm )