RAJA M/S.A.SHANMUGARAJ, S. AGALYA vs HARIKRISHNAN — CMA/3553/2021

Case under U/s 30 of Workmens Compensation Act Section 1. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 05th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCMA010215162020

Filing Number

CMA/16017/2020

Filing Date

06-Feb-2020

Registration No

CMA/3553/2021

Registration Date

13-Dec-2021

Judge

Honourable Mr.Justice K.kumaresh Babu

Coram

Honourable Mr.Justice K.kumaresh Babu

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL ( 167 )

Sub-Category

S. 30 of Workmen Compensation Act (VIII/23) ( 8 )

Judicial Branch

JUDICIALSECTION

Decision Date

05-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

U/s 30 of Workmens Compensation Act Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAJA M/S.A.SHANMUGARAJ, S. AGALYA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.HARIKRISHNAN

    Adv. SR.NO.109428 DATED 02/12/2021,R1 - N.D.W. VIDE VERIFIED PETITION ,r.aishwarya for r2 1123

  2. 2.ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr.Justice K.kumaresh BabuView PDF

    Case Summary: CMA 3553/2021 Court Decision: The Madras High Court partially allowed the appellant's appeal, modifying the compensation awarded by the lower court from Rs. 6,54,950 to Rs. 10,07,616. The court upheld the salary determination at Rs. 8,000/month but crucially revised the loss of earning capacity from 65% to 100%, reasoning that the worker's functional disabilities (loss of right limb use and speech difficulty) rendered him completely incapable of his prior occupation as a van driver. Key Reasoning: The court held that while the Employees' Compensation Act Schedule serves as a guiding factor, it is not binding when medical evidence demonstrates complete functional disablement. Since beneficial legislation favors workers, and the appellant proved the accident occurred during employment, 100% compensation for permanent disability was warranted despite medical assessment of only 65% physical disability. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Apr-2026

    Date Cases

    Honourable Mr.Justice K.kumaresh Babu

  4. 17-Apr-2026

    ``````````````````````````````````````

    Honourable Mr.Justice K.kumaresh Babu

  5. 10-Apr-2026

    Cma - Cases

    Honourable Mr.Justice K.kumaresh Babu

  6. 08-Aug-2024

    Ready Cases

    Honourable Mr Justice Abdul Quddhose

  7. 13-Jun-2024

    Ready Cases

    Honourable Mr Justice Abdul Quddhose

  8. 06-Dec-2023

    Cma - Cases

    Honourable Mr.Justice K.rajasekar

  9. 28-Nov-2023

    Cma - Cases

    Honourable Mr.Justice K.rajasekar

  10. 16-Nov-2023

    Cma - Cases

    Honourable Mr.Justice K.rajasekar

  11. 01-Nov-2023

    Cma - Cases

    Honourable Mr.Justice K.rajasekar

  12. 22-Dec-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  13. 06-Feb-2020

    Case filed

    Registration No. CMA/3553/2021

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CMA 3553/2021 Court Decision: The Madras High Court partially allowed the appellant's appeal, modifying the compensation awarded by the lower court from Rs. 6,54,950 to Rs. 10,07,616. The court upheld the salary determination at Rs. 8,000/month but crucially revised the loss of earning capacity from 65% to 100%, reasoning that the worker's functional disabilities (loss of right limb use and speech difficulty) rendered him completely incapable of his prior occupation as a van driver. Key Reasoning: The court held that while the Employees' Compensation Act Schedule serves as a guiding factor, it is not binding when medical evidence demonstrates complete functional disablement. Since beneficial legislation favors workers, and the appellant proved the accident occurred during employment, 100% compensation for permanent disability was warranted despite medical assessment of only 65% physical disability. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case