Dismissed

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

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Jan 2024CMA/567/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by the insurer against a Workmen's Compensation award of Rs.3,10,763 with 12% interest to the dependents of a labourer who died in the course of transporting material. The High Court held the grounds were purely factual, no substantial question of law arose, and dismissed the appeal, directing payment of differential interest.

What did the court decide?

Claimants entitled to compensation of Rs.3,10,763 with 12% interest from date of claim till payment; appellant directed to deposit differential interest at 12%. No costs.

The Dm., United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs N. Nirmala and… — Insurance | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY ^ T.
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR O
O :d
&
PRESENT

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶4

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 567 OF 2010

¶5

Appeal Under Section 30 of W.C.Act, aggrieved by the orders passed ini; . W.C.No.2 of 2006, dated 22.12.2009 by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Ananthapur.

¶6

Between:

¶7

The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited Ananthapur.

¶8

...Appellant/Opposite No.2

¶9

AND

¶10

N. Nirmala, W/o. N. Ramalinga Reddy, 29 years,

¶11

N. Sai Kumar, S/o. N. Ramalinga Reddy, 8 years,

¶12

N. Anjali, D/o. N. Ramalinga Reddy, 10 years,

¶13

(Respondents 2 and 3 are residing at their mother and natural Guardian and N. M of N. Nirmala)

¶14

N. Nagi Reddy, S/o. N. Narapa Reddy, Age 64 years,

¶15

N. Venkatamma, W/o. Nagi Reddy, Age 62 years.

¶16

All R/o. H.No. 4/2/513, Yuvajana Colony, Anantapur.

¶17

• ..Respondents/Applicants

¶18

Sri K. Rama Muni Reddy, S/o. Obula Reddy R/o. D.No. 3/266, Thapovanam, Anantapur Rural Mandal, Anantapur. (Owner of TractorTrailer bearing No. AP04996 and 4997)

¶19

BA Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o. Ranga Rao R/o. H.No. 1/366 Kota Panchalingal, Kurnool District.

¶20

(RR 6 & 7 are dismissed vide Court Order dated 19.04.2016)

¶21

...Respondents/Opposite Party Nos.1&3

¶22

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI GUDI SRINIVASU

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI INENI VENKATA PRASAD

¶24

The Court made the following Judgment:

¶25

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶26

CMA.No. 567 of 2010

¶27

JUDGMENT:

¶28

The present appeal is filed under section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Acf) questioning the award in W.C.No.2 of 2006 dated 22.12.2009 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Anantapur. 2. The facts leading to the present appeal are as under: The deceased-Sri N.Ramalinga Reddy @ Linga Reddy was employed by opposite party No. 1. On 25.08.2005,^the deceased while transporting the sand and earth material^to opposite party No.l-factory had suffered injuries in the process of giving instructions to other hamalies and consequence of the injuries, the said N.Ramalinga Reddy had expired. The claimants are his widowed wife, minor children and parents. The Anantapur Rural Police had registered a case bearing Crime No. 126 of 2005 and^asthe

¶29

¶30

Tractor and Trailer was insured with opposite Party No.2, the claimants made a claim for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 3. The opposite party No. 1 had filed his counter stating that the late Ramalinga Reddy was the driver of the tractor and was responsible for the accident and vehicle was insured with the opposite party No.2; hence, the opposite party No.2 is liable to pay compensation. The opposite party No.2 i.e. Insurance Company filed their counter admitting to the accident and the insurance, but however, denied the relationship with regard to the employee^and employer, wages, age etc.

¶31

In the course of enquiiy, Exs.A.l to A.8 were marked for the applicants and on behalf of the insurance company. Exs.B.l and B.2 were marked in evidence. The Commissioner, after considering the documentary as^well as the oral evidence, was of the opinion that the deceased late Ramalinga Reddy was employed with opposite party No. 1 and that he met with the accident in the course of his employment. As regards, the age, the Commissioner relied

¶32

¶33

on the postmortem report which indicates that the age^of the deceased was 35 years. The Commissioner was also^of the opinion that the driving licence of the deceased^wasin force as on the date of accident and there is no dispute with regard to the insurance policy. The Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.3,10,763/- along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation to the applicants.

¶34

In the grounds of appeal, only factual aspects were urged and no questions of law were framed. At the time^of admission on 20.7.2010 also, no substantial question^of law were framed for consideration at the time of final hearing.

¶35

(

¶36

The scope of appeal under Section 30 of the Act^isvisa vis the substantial question of law. The grounds of appeal are factual in nature and the arguments of appellant only reiterate the factual grounds raised and do not point^outto any substantial question of law for this Court to consider. The view taken by the Commissioner on appreciation^ofthe

¶37

¶38

evidence on record being a plausible view cannot be^saidto be without any basis and perverse. As long as the view^of Commissioner is plausible, the appeal cannot be sustained. 7. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The order of Commissioner in question is to pay interest @12 % from the date of claim till payment. The payment contemplated under the order is payment to the Claimant and a pre conditional deposit for maintaining this appeal coupled with restraint on the claimant to withdraw the entire amount vide interim order of stay dated 30.04.2010^does not discharge the onus of payment on the appellant company. Therefore, the appellant company is obligated^to deposit the differential interest @ 12% till date. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions^if any shall stand dismissed.

¶39

SD/- E KAMESWARA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SE ON OFFICER

To,

The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation Ananthapur and Assistant Commissioner for Labour, Eluru. (with records if any)

¶44

One CC to Sri Gudi Srinivasu, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Ineni Venkata Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of A.P.^{atAmaravathi.} 5. Three CD Copies

¶45

Psr sree

¶46

HIGH COURT

¶47

'' DATED:25/01/2024 <f

¶48

JUDGMENT

¶49

CMA.No.567 of 2010

¶50

Co,
I 2 0 MAY 2(I2A r
^ . Current Section

¶51

T Copies 2joW\2J+ D5L-

¶52

DISMISSING THE C.M.A. WITHOUT COSTS

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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 Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Vagalla Sambasiva Reddy and Another

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

A.Nandha Harikrishna Vs Surendra Babu