Partly allowed

M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Boyalla Papa Rao

Telangana HC12 Nov 2014CMA/1146/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against workmen's compensation award. Single Judge modified the compensation amount due to the Commissioner's error in applying the wrong wage guidelines for a Public Motor Transport driver, reducing the award based on the correct minimum wage.

What did the court decide?

Compensation awarded to the respondent is modified from Rs.3,26,181 to Rs.3,06,768 by correcting the wage base.

M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

C.M.A. No. 1146 OF 2005

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company/Opposite Party No.2, against an order dated 07.06.2005 in W.C.No.9 of 2003, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Asst.Commissioner of Labour, at Sangareddy, in awarding a sum of Rs.3,26,181/in favour of the 2^nd respondent/applicant under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act’).

¶5

2. The 2^nd respondent/applicant filed W.C.No.9 of 2003 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Asst.Commissioner of Labour, at Sangareddy stating that he has sustained severe head injury and fractures on 05.04.2003 during the course of his employment with the Opposite Party No.1/first respondent herein in front of Gum City Charity Trust on Vikarabad-Sadasivpet road while driving the lorry towards Vikarabad for unloading the bricks. The appellant herein is the insurance company and the crime lorry No. ABP 3157 was insured with the appellant-insurance company. It is also stated that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment while driving the lorry bearing No. ABP 3157. It is also stated that he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month as wages and the first respondent, who is the owner of the crime vehicle, has also admitted in his counter but did not produce any record regarding wages and therefore, in the absence of any authentic evidence of the wages of the applicant, the Commissioner has taken the minimum wage fixed by the Government as Rs.2,393/- per month as per G.O.Ms.No.81, dated 02.12.2000. Hence, sought for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the appellant as well as first respondent herein. 3. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and

¶6

Asst.Commissioner of Labour, at Sangareddy, after considering the material on record, had came to the conclusion that the accident occurred in the course of employment and held that the appellant herein and the first respondent are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.3,26,181/- towards compensation to the second respondent.

¶7

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that though the Doctor, who examined the applicant has not assessed the Disability, but the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Asst.Commissioner of Labour, at Sangareddy, erroneously determined the total disability and took the total loss of earning of the applicant and granted compensation by treating the disability as 100%, which is erroneous. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment reported in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Mohd. Nasir and anothe r^[1] . He further submits that though the vehicle belonging to the first respondent belongs to public motor transport, the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Asst.Commissioner of Labour, at Sangareddy has taken Rs.3,890/- as wages per month, as per G.O.Ms.No.81 dated 02.12.2000 (Labour, Employment, Training and Factories) (Lab.II) Department which applies to Private Motor Transport, instead of taking the wages under ‘Public Motor Transport ‘as per the G.O.Ms.no.30, dated 27.07.2000.

¶8

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent submits that the Doctor, who examined the 2^nd respondent, has clearly opined that the applicant suffered with the closed head injury with distressed fracture posterior parietal bone on the right side and pneumocephalus and that the injuries are grievous in nature and that the applicant may not be able to do hard work by carrying weight on head s he was doing earlier to the accident. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment reported Syed Mehaboob v. New India Assurance Company Limited^[2] and Pamarthi Subba Rao v.

¶9

H.Rama Rao and others^[3] .

¶10

6. In the present case, admittedly the Doctor who has examined the 2^nd respondent/applicant clearly stated that the 2^nd respondent is unable to take up his normal work of carrying weight on his head as he was doing before the accident. The Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, basing on the judgment reported in Pratap Narayansingh Deo v. Srinivas Sabat i^[4] , has granted compensation by holding that the applicant suffered total permanent disablement by applying proper multiplier. Even the learned Single Judge of this Court in the judgment reported in N. Sree Ramulu @ Sree Rama Murthy v. B.Lakshmi Narayana and anothe r^[5] , it is observed that even when the driver is unable the drive the vehicle, which he was doing earlier to the accident, the disability should be taken as 80% and the loss of earning capacity should be taken as 100%. The learned Single Judge has also relied on the Judgments of this Court as well as the judgments of the Apex court and came to such conclusion.

¶11

In view of the same, I do not find any infirmity in granting compensation by taking the loss of earning capacity as 100% by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner for Labour at Sangareddy.

¶12

But the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Asst.Commissioner of Labour, at Sangareddy, by relying on G.O.Ms.No.81 dated 02.12.2000 (Labour, Employment, Training and Factories) (Lab.II) Department pertaining to Private Motor Transport, has taken Rs.2,393/- as wages per month, instead of taking the wages under ‘Public Motor Transport ‘as per the G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 27.07.2000 under the category of Mazdoor as Rs.2,258.50ps, (i.e., Rs.1437/- + VDA Rs.821.50ps). The G.O.Ms.No.81 dated 02.12.2000 is applicable to the Private Motor Transport, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant and is not applicable to the present

¶13

case on hand, as the vehicle involved in the present case comes under Public Motor Transport. As per G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 27.07.2000, the wages of a mazdoor is shown as Rs. Rs.2,258.50ps, (i.e., Rs.1437/- + VDA Rs.821.50ps). In view of the same, the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation should have taken the wage as Rs.2,258.50ps, since the relevant G.O.Ms.No.30 is applicable to the case on hand. Therefore, the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation at Sangareddy has erred in taking the wage of the 2^nd respondent as Rs.2,393/-.

¶14

Therefore, the compensation granted by the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation at Sangareddy is modified by taking the wage of the 2^nd respondent as Rs.2,258.50/- per month, as per G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 27.07.2000. Hence, the 2^nd respondent/applicant is entitled to Rs.3,06,768/- (Rs.2,258.50x60/100x226.38) and not Rs.3,26,181/- which is awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, at Sangareddy. In view of the above, the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner for Labour at Sangareddy, is modified and 2^nd respondent is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,06,768/-. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this CMA, shall stands dismissed.

¶15

A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

¶16

November, 12, 2014. KVS

¶17

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶18

C.M.A. No.1146 OF 2005

¶19

Date: 12-11-2014

¶20

KVS