Dismissed

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Vagalla Sambasiva Reddy and Another

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Jan 2024CMA/503/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge judgment dismissed miscellaneous applications challenging an award under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The court held that the doctrine of limitation does not bar claims filed beyond the prescribed period if valid reasons exist under the Employees Compensation Act. Consequently, the appeal filed by the insurance company was held to have no merit and was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal and miscellaneous petitions are dismissed without costs.

The Oriental Insurance Company… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶5

WIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 503 OF 2nnQ

¶6

Appeal Under Section 30 of the W C Act aggrieved by the orders passed in W.C. No. 103 of 2004, dated 30.04.2005 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Cuddapah.

¶7

Between:

¶8

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Opp; District Court, Cuddapah.

¶9

AND

¶10

...Appellant/ 2"'* Opposite Party

¶11

Vagalla Sambasiva Reddy, S/o. V. Reddeppa Reddy, Aged about 28 years. Lorry Driver, R/o, Thatimakulapalli Village, H/o. Kalicherla Peddamandyam Mandal, Cuddapah District.

¶12

...Respondent / Applicant

¶13

Mohammed, Owner of Lorry No. -04T-3688, R/o. H.No. 66/49, Nayab Saheb Street, Rayachoty Cuddapah District.

¶14

...Respondent /Opposite Party

¶15

(R-2 Not necessary Party vide memo USR No.2428 of 2016)

¶16

.Counsel for the Appellant: SMT. S A V RATNAM

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED

¶18

The Court made the following Order:

¶19

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

CMA.No.503 of 2009

V ■>
V’

JUDGMENT;

The present appeal is filed under section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 questioning the award in W.C.No. 103 of 2004 dated 30.04.2005 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Cuddapah.

¶24

The facts leading to the present appeal are as under:

¶25

The claimant Sri Vegalla Sambasiva Reddy was employed with opposite party No.l in his lorry bearing No.AP 04-T-3688. On 15.05.1998 while the claimant was driving the lony on Kalikiri-Pilleru road, another lorry bearing No.AP 16-U-379 coming from opposite direction had colluded with the claimants lorry, pursuant to^which the claimant suffered serious injuries all over his body and his right leg was fractured, After the accident, the claimant was admitted at Vayalpadu Government Hospital as in-patient and thereafter he took treatment at Chittoor and Tirupati and had spent Rs.30,000/- for his treatment.

¶26

¶27

medicines and attendant charges etc. It was further claimed that the claimant was not in a position to^driveas there was a shortening of his right leg by 1 V2 inches^dueto the fracture of the right leg, the claimant was not in a position to sit and squat. It was claimed that the^petitioner was being paid wages of Rs.4,000/- per month. In view of the loss of income, the petitioner sought Rs.4,00,000/towards compensation.

¶28

The opposite party No.2 i.e. insurance company filed their counter denying the averments and stated that^the opposite party No.l had violated policy terms and conditions for allowing three passengers in the travel^goods earner vehicle on the date of incident. It was further pointed out that the owner of the insurance company^of the opposite vehicle i.e. AP 16-U-379 was not added^as a party and as such the present petition is not maintainable.

¶29

In the course of enquiry, Exs.A.l to A.5 were marked. One Dr.G.Venkata Subbaiah was examined as A.W.2 who had certified the nature of injuries suffered by the^claimant and assessed the disability at 45%. A.W.2 also stated^that

there was shortening of the leg by 1 l/a inches. In the evidence of R.W.l, the plea of limitation was urged stating that there is a time gap of 3 '■/■z years in filing the present claim petition and in the absence of valid reasons, the claim petition is not maintainable. The Commissioner^after examining the evidence on record awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,61,251/- to the claimant along with interest^atthe rate of 12% from the date of accident till actual payment.

¶34

In the grounds of appeal, the substantial question^of law which was urged was that the claim application^was filed with a delay of more than three years from the^dateof accident.

¶35

Under the 5th proviso to the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, the Commissioner can entertain applications beyond the period of two years specified for valid reasons. Unlike the Limitation Act, 1963 where^the civil Courts on original side do not have power to^condone delay, the authority under the Act can entertain claims^for compensation beyond the periods prescribed for valid reasons under the 5th proviso to Section 10 of the

¶36

¶37

¶38

Employees Compensation Act, 1923. The Act being a welfare legislation, the Commissioner by entertaining^the claim application has only acted in pursuit of the objective of the Act. It is also to be noted that no serious objection was also raised by the appellant before the Commissioner on this aspect. Therefore, the aspect of limitation urged by the appellants cannot be sustained.

¶39

Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.^As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.

¶40

SDI- E KAMESWARA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and^Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Cuddapah (with records if any)

¶45

One CC to Smt. S A V Ratnam Advocate [OPUC]

¶46

The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of^{A.P.atAmaravathi.} 4. Three CD Copies

Psr sree 3%(.

HIGH COURT

DATED:25/01/2024

JUDGMENT

CMA.No.503 of 2009

G Cof^es
Zoltflaif
D5L_

¶54

I 2 0 MAY MZii o
Current Section . ^

¶55

DISMISSING THE C.M.A. WITHOUT COSTS

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Vagalla Sambasiva Reddy and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Vagalla Sambasiva Reddy and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Buddala Nirmala Reddy Vs Bobbili Jagannaikulu

B Narsimhappa Died by His Lrs and 2 Others Vs K Narayanappa, Ananthapur Dist

Sri Kolipakula Steels Corporation, Vs Chennuri Babu Rao

The National Insurance Company Limited, Vs Sk. Bude at Basja.

A.Nandha Harikrishna Vs Surendra Babu

The Dm., United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs N. Nirmala and 6 Others