Remanded

M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited v. K. Menakamma

Telangana HC26 Oct 2009CMA/726/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal against a compensation order was disposed of by setting aside the Commissioner's award. The court remanded the matter because no adjudication was made regarding whether the deceased driver and Opposite Party No.1 were identical, which was a crucial issue for entitlement.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 31.10.2008 set aside; matter remanded to Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tirupati, to adjudicate on identity of deceased and driver and pass appropriate orders.

M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.726 of 2009

¶2

Between:

¶3

M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited.

¶4

APPELLANT

¶5

AND

¶6

K.Menakamma and others.

¶7

.....RESPONDENTS

¶8

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.726 of 2009

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

¶11

This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 31.10.2009 passed in W.C.Case No.13 of 2007 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirupati, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the respondents herein under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, and the A.P. Rules, 1953, came to be allowed granting compensation of Rs.2,94,102/- for the death of one K. Subramanyam.

¶12

The background facts of the case in a nutshell leading to filing of this appeal by the Opposite party No.2 in W.C.Case No.13 of 2007 are as follows:

¶13

One K.Subramanyam died in an accident. He was the driver of the vehicle on the date of the accident. The applicants claiming to be the dependents of the deceased-K.Subramanyam filed an application claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. K.Subramanyam has been impleaded as Opposite party No.1 and

¶14

M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited has been impleaded as Opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 remained ex parte on 18.05.2009. Opposite party No.2 filed a counter disputing the entitlement of the applicants to claim compensation.

¶15

The Commissioner for Workmen’s compensation has framed the following points for consideration.

¶16

1. Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and he

¶17

met with an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting into death?

¶18

2. What was the age of deceased at the time of accident?

¶19

3. What were the wages paid to the deceased at the time of accidental death?

¶20

4. What is the quantum of compensation payable to the applicants?

¶21

5. Who are liable to pay the compensation to the applicants?

¶22

On behalf of the applicants, three witnesses were examined as AWs.1 to 3 and five documents were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of the Opposite party No.2, neither ocular nor documentary evidence was adduced. The Commissioner on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel for the parties determined the compensation payable to the dependents of deceasedK.Subramanyam at Rs.2,94,102/-, by order dated 31.10.2008. The said order is assailed in this appeal.

¶23

Heard Sri E.Venugopal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4- applicants.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

¶25

one K.Subramanyam, who is shown as Opposite party No.1, is no other than the driver of the vehicle and, therefore, the applicants are not entitled to claim compensation. To convince me that one

¶26

K. Subramanyam is the driver of the vehicle, learned counsel took me to the first information report, which formed the basis for registering a case in Crime No.33 of 2006. A report came to be presented by applicant No.2-K.Anand. It is stated in the report that his father-K. Subramanyam while driving the school van met with the accident and died on 25.07.2006 at about 5.30 P.M.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4-applicants submits that the appellant-Opposite party No.2 did not choose to adduce any evidence to show that the driver of the vehicle viz. K. Subramanyam and Opposite party No.1, K. Subrahmanyam, are

¶28

one and the same and, therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner does not warrant interference.

¶29

I have gone through the first information report. The applicant No.2 viz. K. Anand has specifically stated that his fatherK.Subramanyam was the driver of the vehicle and he died in the accident. The Opposite party No.1 is also shown as K.Subramanyam. Essentially, the issue is whether the deceased-K.Subramanyam, who was driver of the vehicle at the relevant time, and the Opposite party No.1, are one and the same. There is no adjudication by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation on this aspect. Therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirupati, is set aside remanding the matter back to the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirupati, to consider afresh and pass appropriate orders. Both the parties are at liberty to adduce evidence on the issue whether the deceasedK.Subramanyam and the Opposite party No.1, K.Subramanyam, are one and the same. Once the issue is held in favour of the applicants, their entitlement would be Rs.2,94,102/-. The Commissioner shall dispose of the same within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶30

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶31

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J

¶32

Date:26.10.2009 usd

M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited v. K. Menakamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited v. K. Menakamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdullah Bin Ahmed, Vs Syed Chand

Arukula Mallikarjuna, Vs The State of A.P.

Smt.Radha rani Vs N.P.Sunil Kumar

Khadi and Village Industries Commission, rep.b y its Vs The Karya Vidyalaya, rep. by its Secretary

Gurram Venkata Surya Prakasa Rao Vs Uppala Lalitha Devi

Bolla China Venkanna Vs Dasari Sri Ramulu