Dismissed

The National Insurance Company ltd., v. Javvaji Malleposhani

Telangana HC12 Nov 2014CMA/307/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil miscellaneous appeal against an award of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the Single Judge dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law and upholding the quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs; ancillary miscellaneous petitions pending in the appeal were also dismissed.

The National Insurance Company ltd., Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 307 OF 2005

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company/appellant against the order passed in W.C.No.2 of 2001 dated 13.11.2003 by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour/Warangal-1 in awarding compensation of Rs.3,25,365/- to the respondents 1 to 4 in respect of death of Javvaji Ramesh.

¶5

It is stated that the deceased died in an accident that occurred on 18.08.2000 while the deceased was proceeding in Tractor bearing No. AP 36T 8654 belonging to the 5^th respondent, who is Opposite Party before the Court below and the respondents 1 to 4 filed Workmen’s Compensation in W.C.No.2 of 2001 against the appellant being the insurer of the aforesaid vehicle claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation. It is stated that first respondent is the wife, the 2^nd respondent is the daughter and the respondents 3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased. The Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation and Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Warangal-I, by taking into consideration of the documents marked on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4, awarded an amount of Rs.3,25,365/in favour of the respondents 1 to 4.

¶6

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that though the compensation claimed is Rs.3,00,000/-, the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Warangal-I, has granted Rs.3,25,365/-. He also contends that the claim petition is not maintainable since a sum of Rs.70,000/- was paid to the respondents 1 to 4 towards compensation by the owner of the crime vehicle, which is involved in the accident and also executed a deed on 08.01.2001. He further stated that the Commissioner,

¶7

Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Warangal-I, has taken the wage of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month, whereas as per Explanation II to Section 4 of the Act, the wage of a workmen should be taken as Rs.2,000/- per month.

¶8

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the salary of the deceased workmen was taken as Rs.3,000/- per month and the amendment to Explanatino II of Section 4 of the Act has come into effect from 08.08.2000 enhancing the same to Rs.4,000/-, which shows that the maximum limit the wage of workman that can be taken for grant of compensation is Rs.4,000/- per month.

¶9

Ex.A1, the certified copy of the First Information Report, Ex.A2, certified copy of the inquest report, Ex.A3, certified copy of Post Mortem Examination Report, Ex.A4, Xerox copy of certificate of registration, Ex.A5, Xerox copy of permit, Ex.A6, Xerox copy of driving licence of deceased J.Ramesh and Ex.A7, Xerox copy of insurance policy report No.118082 of National Insurance Co. Ltd.

¶10

In view of amendment to Explanation II of Section 4 of the Act, the maximum limit the wage of workman that can be taken is Rs.4,000/- per month, which came into effect from 08.08.2000 i.e., before date of accident i.e., 18.08.2000, it cannot be said that the fixation of wage by Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Warangal-I at Rs.3,000/- per month is erroneous. The Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Warangal-I, thoroughly discussed the evidence and awarded the just compensation, by relying on Exs.A1 to A7 by taking relevant factor into account. The substantial question of law that is mentioned in ground No.5 only pertains to re-appreciation of evidence. The Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court has consistently held that just compensation should be granted by keeping aside the technicalities and necessitates of law. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any substantial question of

¶11

law in this appeal.

¶12

Accordingly, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this CMA shall stands dismissed.

¶13

_______________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 12.11.2014 kvs.

¶14

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶15

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 307 OF 2005

¶16

Date: 12.11.2014

¶17

kvs

The National Insurance Company ltd., v. Javvaji Malleposhani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The National Insurance Company ltd., v. Javvaji Malleposhani

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

Maddi Radhakrishna Murthy Vs Smt Maddali Prameela

Smt Bavisetti Satyavathi Vs Vankadara Appa Rao

M/s.Shri Venkateswara Sponge and Power (P) Ltd., Vs M/s. Vandana Industrial Corporation Limited

M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs Boyalla Papa Rao

M/s United Steel Allied Industries Private Limited, Vs -

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