Dismissed

M/s Pscc Poles Factor v. Bibi Makina Khatoon

Telangana HC5 Dec 2014CMA/318/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the single judge found that the appeal did not involve a substantial question of law and was not maintainable. The Commissioner's order granting compensation to the legal heirs of a deceased workman who suffered an electric shock was upheld.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed; miscellaneous petitions pending to stand dismissed; no order as to costs.

M/s Pscc Poles Factor Vs Bibi Makina Khatoon — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

C.M.A. No. 318 OF 2005

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/opposite party under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, against the order passed in W.C.Case No.A/42 of 2002 dated 05.02.2004 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act’) wherein an amount of Rs.2,35,781/- was granted in favour of the respondents. 2. When this matter was listed on 10.10.2014, none appeared for the appellant, as such the matter was adjourned. Again when the matter is listed on 12.11.2014, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant and even when the matter is posted on 04.12.2014, none appeared for the appellant. Today, when the matter is posted for orders, none appeared for the appellant.

¶5

3. Facts necessary for disposal of this Appeal are that the respondents filed W.C.Case No.A/42/2002 claiming compensation in respect of death of Mr.Dawood Ali, aged 41 years stating that he was employed with the appellant as a head labourer on daily wages of Rs.100/- per day. It is stated that he received electric shock while on duty on 16.12.1999 and he was immediately shifted to the Government Hospital, Bhongir, wherein he succumbed to injuries. The Police, Bibinagar registered a case in Cr.No.68/99 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. It is stated that the deceased belongs to Bihar State. It is also stated that the respondents are legal heirs of the deceased Dawood Ali. It is stated that the Inspector of Factories, Nalgonda vide letter dated 29.12.1999 informed the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Nalgonda about the fatal accident that took place in the industrial premises of the appellant. Basing on the same, the

¶6

Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Nalgonda, vide letter dated 24.01.2002 sent a notice to the appellant to furnish the information regarding the age and wages of the deceased. It is stated that the appellant through letter dated 27.02.2002 submitted it had already paid Rs.1,01,246/- towards different expenses in connection with the fatal accident occurred to Dawood Ali on 16.12.1999 and that amount includes the ambulance rent to take the dead body to the native place of the deceased, air packaging bag for the dead body, hospital expenses, fine paid in the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bhongir. In spite of several letters, the appellant has not given the particulars of the deceased Dawood Ali about the age, wage and expenses incurred in connection with the fatal accident.

¶7

4. Heard learned counsel for the respondents.

¶8

5. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Nalgonda, by relying on Exs.A1 to A5 granted compensation of Rs.2,35,781/-. Ex.A2 is the certificate given by the Police, Bibinagar narrating about the crime No.68 of 1999, Ex.A3 is the attested copy of First Information Report of Police Station, Bibinagar, dated 17.12.1999 which goes to show that deceased Dawood Ali died in the premises of the appellant. Mr. Jagini Nageswara Rao, who is one of the employees of the appellant gave initial complaint. Ex.A4 is the panchanama report. Ex.A5 is the post mortem examination report of the deceased issued by the Civil Assistant surgeon, Area Hospital, Bhongir, shows the cause of death as cardiac arrest due to electric shock. By placing reliance on all these documents, the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Nalgonda, held that the deceased Mr.Dawood Ali is an employee of the appellant and during the course of employment he died and granted compensation. However, a perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner shows that in spite of addressing several letters to the appellant regarding the proof of age, wage and documents pertaining to expenses incurred for medical

¶9

treatment, the appellant has not given the particulars.

¶10

6. In view of above facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Nalgonda has granted compensation without any basis. Moreso, the appeal under Section 30 of the Act lies only when substantial question of law involved in the appeal. But no such substantial question of law is raised in the grounds of appeal and even the grounds raised in the appeal also show that they are all questions relating to appreciation of evidence. Unless substantial question of law involved, the appeal would not lie under Section 30 of the Act.

¶11

7. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the entire amount has not been deposited and no proof is filed regarding the age, wage and medical expenses incurred even at the stage of appeal, as such, appeal is also not maintainable under proviso to Section 30 of the Act. Even from the docket proceedings, it is found that entire compensation amount has not been deposited. In view of above facts and circumstances, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal and no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Nalgonda.

¶12

Accordingly, the 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

¶14

December, 05, 2014. KVS

¶15

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶16

C.M.A. No.318 OF 2005

¶17

Date: 05-12-2014

¶18

KVS

M/s Pscc Poles Factor v. Bibi Makina Khatoon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Pscc Poles Factor v. Bibi Makina Khatoon

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

Deccan chronicle Holdings limited Vs Deccan chronicle Holdings limited

Ganta Ramu Vs Sri M. Srinivasa Rao

C.Hari Kiran,S/o Purnachandra Rao Vs Dr. G.v.R.Prasada Raju

M/s. Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Vs M/s. Mylan Laboratories Limited

Podili Siddamma Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

.Sudhakara Rao and 4 Others Vs State Bank of India Ongole