Partly allowed

Yerra Gundla Ashnna, v. Sri Chinna Gangaram

Telangana HC25 Jun 2018CMA/1461/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the applicant's appeal against the quantum of workmen's compensation. It enhanced compensation by increasing the monthly wage factor from Rs.2,000 to Rs.3,000 and ordered interest at 12% per annum from the filing date until realization.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.1,33,626 to Rs.2,00,439 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing until realization.

Yerra Gundla Ashnna, Vs Sri Chinna Gangaram — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Dr . JUSTI CE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶2

CI VI L MI SCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1 4 6 1 of 2 0 0 4

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation of Rs.1,33,626/ - awarded by the Commissioner for Workmens’ Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, vide order, dated 12.03.2004, passed in W.C.No.293 of 2003 NF, as against the total claim of Rs.5,00,000/ -, the applicant preferred this appeal under Section 30 the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (‘the Act’, for brevity) seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶5

2 . Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, the learned Standing Counsel for the National Insurance Company Limited representing the 2^nd respondent and perused the record.

¶6

3 . The learned counsel for the appellant-applicant would submit that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, had taken the monthly salary of the appellant-applicant as Rs.2,000/ -, though the appellant-applicant was earning more than Rs.5,000/ - per month. Though there is medial evidence to show that the appellant-applicant suffered 55% disability, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, assessed the disability suffered by the appellant-applicant as 50% , which is not in consonance with the Act and the Rules. The learned Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, did not grant any interest on the compensation granted and ultimately prayed to enhance the compensation as claimed.

¶7

¶8

4 . On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent-Insurance Company would submit that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, has taken all the relevant factors into consideration and awarded just and reasonable amount as compensation. The submissions made on behalf of the appellant-applicant do not merit consideration. There is nothing to interfere with the impugned Order and ultimately prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶9

5 . It is not in dispute that the appellant-applicant suffered injuries in a motor accident that occurred on 06.02.2002 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor bearing registration No.AP-25-F-5426 and Trailer bearing registration No.AP-25-F-5527, while working as Driver under respondent No.1. So, the only dispute is with regard to assessment and quantum of compensation.

¶10

6 . The Tribunal had calculated the compensation payable to

¶11

the appellant-applicant, as mentioned hereunder: -

¶12

1 . Mon t h ly w age of t h e applican t : Rs.2 ,0 0 0 / - 2 . Age of t h e applican t : 2 1 y ear s 3 . Loss of ear n in g capacit y : 5 0 % 4 . Relev an t age fact or : 2 2 2 .7 1 5 . Com pen sat ion : 6 0 % of w ages x r elevan t fact or x loss of ear n in g capacit y = 2 ,0 0 0 / - x 6 0 / 1 0 0 x 2 2 2 .7 1 x 5 0 / 1 0 0 = Rs.1 ,3 3 ,6 2 6 / -.

¶13

7 . As far as the age of the appellant-applicant is concerned, he was 21 years old as on the date of accident. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, after analysing the material on record, held that the percentage of disability suffered by the appellant-applicant is 50% . The same is based on record

¶14

¶15

and there is nothing to vary the same. As far as the monthly wage of the appellant-applicant is concerned, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, had taken the same as Rs.2,000/ -. Admittedly, the appellant-applicant was working as working as driver on the Tractor bearing registration No.AP-25F-5426 and Trailer bearing registration No.AP-25-F-5527 as on the date of accident. Earning capabilities of the appellantapplicant at the relevant point of time is required to be taken into consideration. Under these circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to take the monthly wage of the appellantapplicant as Rs.3,000/ -. Accordingly, the compensation payable to the appellant-applicant is calculated as below:

¶16

1 . Mon t h ly w age of t h e applican t : Rs.3 ,0 0 0 / - 2 . Age of t h e applican t : 2 1 y ear s 3 . Loss of ear n in g capacit y : 5 0 % 4 . Relev an t age fact or : 2 2 2 .7 1 5 . Com pen sat ion : 6 0 % of w ages x r elevan t fact or x loss of ear n in g capacit y = 3 ,0 0 0 / - x 6 0 / 1 0 0 x 2 2 2 .7 1 x 5 0 / 1 0 0 = Rs.2 ,0 0 ,4 3 9 / - .

¶17

8 . It is evident from the Order under challenge that the learned Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, did not award any interest on the amount awarded as compensation. There is a catena of decisions, where interest at the rate of 12% per annum is awarded on the amount awarded as compensation. Having regard to the same, this Court deems it appropriate to award interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount awarded as compensation, from the date of petition till realization.

¶18

9 . In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,33,626/ - to

¶19

¶20

Rs.2,00,439/ - with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the application before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, till the date of realisation. On deposit of the compensation, the appellant-applicant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with the interest accrued thereon. The other terms of the Order under challenge remain unaltered.

¶21

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶22

____________________
Dr . SHAMEEM AKTHER, J
25 th June, 2018
Bvv

Yerra Gundla Ashnna, v. Sri Chinna Gangaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yerra Gundla Ashnna, v. Sri Chinna Gangaram

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

Singarapu , Kanaparthi Kanakamma Vs Sangekar Narender

A. Durga Vara Prasad Vs The State of A.P

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Yellapu Kasumani and 3 Ors.

Bangara Sivaprasad Vs M.Appala Swamy and Anr.

Mohammad Hyder , Mohammad Hyder and Another Vs Baby T. Ambika and Another

Tamada Chinna Vs Bevara Appalanaidu