Dismissed

The United India Insurance Company Limited, Mancherial v. Bethi Madhava Reddy and 2 Others

Telangana HC22 Oct 2021CMA/1182/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges the compensation award regarding interest. The single-appellant bank submitted that interest under Section 4-A(3) was illegal. The bench held the award complied with Section 4-A(3Xa) and cited Supreme Court precedents. The appeal is dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed against the compensation award is dismissed with costs.

The United India Insurance Company Limited, Mancherial Vs Bethi… — Insurance | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR, JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶5

C.M.A. NO:^'1182 oF 200s

¶6

Appeal under Section 30 of W.C.Act, against the Order/ decree in w.c.No.08/2003 dated 1811112004 on the file of the court of the commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Adilabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

The United lndia lnsurance _Company Limited, rep. by its Branch Manag er, 6-7311 , Balaji Complex, Gangareddy Road, Mancherial, Adilabad District.

¶9

...APPELLANT/2No OppOStTe^pARTy AND

¶10

Bethi Madhava Reddy, S/o Gopal Reddy General Mazdoor in S.C. Co. Ltd, Rl/o.Bellampally Basthi Bellampally Adilibad District.

¶11

Bethi Manemma, W/olVladhava Reddy House Wife R/o Bellampally Basthi Bellampally Adilabad District.

¶12

,...Respondents/ Applicants

¶13

Ch.Tirupathi,S/oYellaiahOwnerofJeepAp-jU-3754,R/oH.No..l0-34, lncline Basthi Bellampally, Adilabad District.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/ 1ST OPPOSITE PARTY

¶15

For the Appellant : SRI NARESH BYRAPANENI, Advocate

¶16

For the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SRI S.CHANDRA SHEKHAR, Advocate

¶17

Forthe Respondent No.3 : NO ONE APPEARED

¶18

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

THE IION'BLE DT. JUSTICE^{G. RADHA RANI} CIVIL NIISC]ELLANEOUS^{APPEALNo.1l82 of2005}

¶20

JUDGME NT:

¶21

This appeal is filed against the order^{dated18.11.2004passed} by the Commissioner for^{Workmen's Compensationand Assistant} Commissioner of Labour,^{Karimnagar(for short 'Commissioner')in} W.C. No.S of 2003. The appellant^{is the InsuranceCompany, which} was the Opposite Party No.2 while the^{respondents were the} applicants and the insured^- Opposite^{Party No.1 .}

¶22

The Comrnissioner^passed the award directing^{the opposite} parties 1 and 2 to deposit an amount of Rs.2,96,272i-^{with interestat} l2o/o per annum under Section a-A(3) of the^{AmendmentAct, 30th} August, 1995 excluding Advocate's fee. He directed^{the interest to be} calculated after thirly⁽³⁰⁾ days of accident till^{the date of deposit of} the amount by referring to the citation of Ved^{Prakash Garg v.} Premidevi & Othersr and Nanu v. Ghouse Mohinuddin2.

¶23

Heard the leamed counsel for the appellant.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Commissioner failed to apply the rule of law in awarding^interest, but during the course of hearing, the leamed counsel fairly conceded that the interest was au'arded as per the provisions of law and as^per the

¶25

, (AIR 1997 SC 38s) '?^{(2004 (5) ALD48)}

¶26

¶27

)

¶28

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental lnsurance

¶29

Company v. Siby George3.

¶30

In view of the said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and considering the above^judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and also as the interest is awarded in terms of Section a-A(3Xa) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, one month after the date of accident, I do not find any merits in the appeal^and hence, it is liable to be dismissed.

¶31