Dismissed

M/S.United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt.Tullibulli Jayamma and 2 Ors.

Telangana HC16 Jun 2021CMA/1252/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Workmen's Compensation appeal filed by United India Insurance Company. The Court held that mere non-filing of the driver's license by claimants cannot exonerate the insurance company in the absence of evidence on behalf of the insurer to contravene the driver's employment status or the accident facts.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed with no costs; pending miscellaneous petitions also dismissed.

M/S.United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶5

.M.A. NO: 12 OF 4

¶6

Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's^{CompensationAct,against the} Judgmenv decree in W.c.No.124^{of 2003 daled 2010212004on the file of the court of} the Commissioner for the Workmen's^{Compensationandthe ASS|stantCommissionerof} Labour, Hyderabad-l

¶7

Between:

¶8

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY^{LTD., Branch Manager, BranchNo.2' Arya} Towers' G'T'Road' Nellore'

¶9

...A''ELLANT/ opposrrE^pARTyNo.2

¶10

AND

¶11

TULLIBULLI JAYAMMA, Wo.T.Kotaiah

¶12

T.Kotaiah,

¶13

(Both are PJo. H.No.7-19313, Hightech Teachers Colony,^{Old Bowenpalli,} Secunderabad)

¶14

(RR 1 & 2 disd. for default vide Court Order dated^29101111)

¶15

......Applicants/ Respondents

¶16

Ch.Narasimham, S/o.Krishnaiah^{Owner of Jeep No AP 16 WO 842 Kondapuram,} Nellore District.

¶17

,..RESPONDENT/ OPPOSITE^PARTYNO.1

¶18

For the Appellant : SRI^{E. VENUGOPAL REDDY, Advocate}

¶19

For the Respondents : NONE^APPEARED

¶20

The Court delivered the following:^JUDGMENT

¶21

1 i

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODAhIDA RAM

¶23

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAI- No.1252 OI 2OO4

¶24

JUDGMENT:

¶25

In this appeal filed by the United India Insurance Company, challenge is to the order dated 20.O2.2004 passed by lhe Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation in W.C.Case No.124 of 2003 granting a total compensation of Rs.2,97,564/- to the claimants l and 2, who are the mother and father, respectively, of the deceased driver Kondal Rao who died of injuries suffered in the accident that occurred on 18.10.2002 while on duty as driver of^jeep bearing No.AP-16W-0842.

¶26

Heard Sri E. Venugopal Reddy, learned Standing Cou nsel appearing for the insurance company/ in place of Sri Briz Mohan Singh, learned counsel who is no more.

¶27

The vehicle AP-16W- 0842 insured with the appellant met with an accident on 18.10.2002 and the driver Kondal Rao died while being shifted to the hospital at Kandukuru. The claimants who are legal representatives of the deceased filed claim petition under the Workmen Compensation Act, and the compensation of Rs.2,97,564/- was awarded. Challenging the award on the ground of non-filing of driving license by the claimants, the lnsurance company is before this Court in this appeal.

¶28

The authority has recorded a finding of fact that the deceased was driving the vehicle at the relevant point of time and that the death of the deceased Kondal Rao in the accident was not in dispute. The authority has taken into conslderation the G.O.No.30 of L,E,F &T Department dated 27.07.2000, and considering the Basic at Rs.1874 and the VDA admissible as on the date of accident at Rs.800/-, taken the wages as Rs.2,674/- and determined the total compensation as Rs.2,97,564/-.

¶29

C(R, I

¶30

¶31

It may^{be noted that the evidence on recorddisclosesthat in the} cross^{examination of O'P'1 by the counselfor O P 2/insurancecomPany'} o.P.1^{had admitted about employer-employeerelationship'thereby} confirming^{the factum of employmentof the deceasedunder O P'1as} driver.^{Further, as a matter of fact' nothing was elicited in the cross} examination^{tocontradict the evidence ofO'P'1' regardingthe} employment^{status of the deceasedunder O'P'1'and also the factum of} the subject^{vehicle being driven by the deceasedat the time of accident'} thereby^{confirmingthat the deceased was the driver'}

¶32

The^{questionat this stage to be consideredis - "Merelyon the} ground of non-filing^{of driving licenseby the claimants' can the insurance} company^{be exonerated?}

¶33

This Court,^{in similar circumstances' in National InsuranceCo'} Ltd. v.^{T. sabithalhad held thatmerenon-filingof d rivinglicense} cannot exoneratetheinsuranceCompanyintheabsenceofevidenceon behalf of^{the insurance comPanY'}

¶34

In the^{presentcase on hand'O'P'2/insurance company was not} examined^{though a counselwas engagedon behalfof O'P 2ln those} circumstances,^{notwithstandingthe persuasiveargumentof the learned} standing^{counsel,in the absence of evidenceon behalf of insurance} company,^{the finding of fact recorded by the authority cannot be} interfered^with,

¶35

Accordingly,^{the appealis dismissed'No costs' Miscellaneous}

¶36

petitions, if^anY Pen^{ding,shall also stand dismissed'}

¶37

2016⁽¹ )AL^D656

¶38

Sd/.K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR TRUE^COPY' v,/ SECTION^OFFICER

¶39

To 1 lH?",$f :i'il"g3:,[:ilkn',1tf 2. On" CC^{to Sri E VenugoPat} ""i",il";no'nuAssistant 3. Two CD^CoPies 4. One Spare^CoPY Ki

¶40

.>-

¶41

HIGH COURT DATED:16/06/2021

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

1 t\e I €
(
a
m
o 1 g Jut ,t}.
*
t
D E S Aa

¶44

CMA.No.1252 ot 2004

¶45

DISMTSSING THE APPEAL

¶46

t( <br>Q-i. .,.'!,'. ,
c6t '4.i/

M/S.United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt.Tullibulli Jayamma and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt.Tullibulli Jayamma and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K Manasa, Ranga Reddy Dist Vs D Hari Prasad, Medak Dist

Mr.Abdul Baseer Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments and 4 Others

Maddeboina Laxmi Prasanna Vs Maddeboina Sai Sharath

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.Hyd Vs Amar Chand and Anr.

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs Ulli Sudhakar Goud S/O Gangadha and Another

The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited Vs N.Shanker and Another