Dismissed

Poloju Ramulu and Another v. Sri B.Krishnam Raju and 2 Others

Telangana HC9 Jun 2021CMA/2176/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by United India Insurance Company. The court held that the alleged absence of an employer-employee relationship could not be sustained due to lack of contrary evidence and that the appellant failed to substantiate its claim that the insurance policy did not cover the deceased workman.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed; the impugned order awarding compensation to the respondents is upheld.

Poloju Ramulu and Another Vs Sri… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶6

CIVIL MISCELLANE OUS APPEAL NO: 2'176 OF 2003

¶7

Appeal Under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act against the order in W.C.No.90 of 1998 dated 28.03.2003 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy District, Circle-ll, T. Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavan, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch I,4anager, Near New Bus Stop, Sanga Reddy, Medak District. Now rep. by its Asst. Divisional lr,4anager Office at D.O-Vl, I Floor, Lenanine Estate, Gun foundry, Hydera bad-500001

¶10

...APPELLANT/OPPOSITE PARTY NO.3

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Sri Poloju Ramulu, S/o. Late Rama Chandraiaah, aged about 45 yrs, Occ: Carpenter, No. 1-7-167 l1 A, Kamalanagar, ECIL, R.R. District.

¶13

2 Smt. Poloju Govindamma, W/o. Poloju Ramulu, aged about 38 years, Occ Housewife, No. 1-7-167 l1A, Kamalanagar, ECIL, R.R. District.

¶14

B. Krishnam Raju, S/o. Rama Raaju, aged major, Occ: Business, No.2-2-26, Kuchanpally ((V) Medak District.

¶15

G. Gopal, S/o. Sri Kistaiah, aged major, Occ: Business, No.2-2-26, Kuchanpally ((V) Medak District.

¶16

(Appeal against Respondent Nos.3 & 4 dismissed for default vide Court Order d1.28.01 .201 1)

¶17

.,.RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS

¶18

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI B. PARAMESEWARA RAO

¶20

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶21

¶22

THE HON'BLE^{SRIJUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM}

¶23

c.M. A. No.2^{176 of 2003}

¶24

JUDGMENT:

¶25

TheUnitedlndialnsuranceCompanyLimitedfiledthisAppeal aggrieved by the^{order dated 28'03'2003 passed by the learned} Commissioner^{for Workmen's Compensationand Assistant} Commissioner^{of Labour,Ranga Reddy District' Circle-ll' in W C'} No.9O/"1 998 awarding^{compensation of Rs 1 ,41 ,977 l- togetherwith} stamp fee of^{Rs.283/-to respondent Nos l and 2-Applicants}

¶26

Thebrieffactsofthecase,whicharenotindispute'arethat one Poloju^{Venkanna S/o Poloju Ramuluclaimed to have been} working with^{respondentNo 3, ownerof the Tractor and Trailor} bearing No.AAK-8708^{and AAK-8710, as a Cleaner and that on} 08.07.1997,^{the sub,iect vehicle met with an accident on account of} rash and negllgent^{drivingof the Driver resulting in the death of the} said Venkanna.^{There is no dispute that the vehiclewas insured} with the Appellant^{lnsuranceCompanyThe legal representatives of} the deceased^{filed the W.C. claiming a sum of Rs 2'50'0001as} com^pen satio^n.

¶27

TheCommissionerafterconsideringtheoralanddocumentary evidence on^{record, passed the order under Appeal awarding a sum} of Rs.1 ,41 ,g77 l-^{as compensation together with stamp fee of} Rs.283/- along^{with interest} @^{9%per annumfrom the date of the} accident on^{the amountof compensation awarded}

¶28

¶29

CMA No.2176

¶30

Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that as per Ex.A10, which is an act policy, the employee is not covered under it, as, no additional premium has been paid. He further submits that though the deceased had claimed to be a Cleaner, the owner of the vehicle had denied the fact that the deceased was employed by him. He also submits that inasmuch as there is no employee and employer relationship established and inasmuch as the policy does not cover the deceased as no additional premium has been paid, awarding of compensation under the workmen,s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short,the Act,) is illegat, as such, the order under Appeal is liable to be set aside.

¶31

At the outset, it may be noted that except the bard statement of the appellant that there was no employer_employee relationship, there is no other evidence produced. However, the evidence, by itself, does not disclose that the deceased was not working on the subject vehicle and undisputedly, Ex.A1_FlR, Ex.A2-inquest report, Ex.A3-charge sheet, Ex.A4_case diary and statements, ExAS_MV| reporr and Ex.A6-postmortem report confirm the occurrence of the accident and the death of p.Venkanna, deceased, lf the deceased was not employed by the owner of the subject vehicre, there courd have been no reason for him to work as a Cleaner in the subject vehicle at the relevant point of time. In the circumstances, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant that there was no employer_employee relationship, cannot be accepted.

¶32

¶33

cMA No 2176 "7[for3

¶34

So far as the insurance policy not covering the risk with respect to the workmen, under the Act, is concerned, though the policy was marked, in the absence of any oral and documentary evidence adduced, much less, reliable evidence, the Appeal does not deserve to be considered, thus, it is liable to be dismissed.

¶35

Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed.

¶36

ilzliscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed

¶37

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

SD/. B.S. CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

lt-r"

To,

SECTION OFFICER

1 The commissioner for workmen's compensation and Assistant commissioner of L.1o^bu r, Ranga Reddy District,. Circle-l l,'T. Anjaiah karmir,i Slrf sn;.;ii;;;;;: RTC Cross Roads, Hyderabad. (with record)^'

¶44

2 One CC to Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate [OpUC]

¶45

3 One CC to Sri B. Paramesewara Rao, Advocate tOpUCl

¶46

Two CD Copies A One Spare Copy gbr

All-

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0910612021

JUDGMENT

CMA.No.2176 of 2003

I €
1€. S
\I
2tt1 i
i oB Jut
I
j'rt
tr
't
r.rCP

¶53

DISMISSING THE APPEAL

¶54

NO COSTS

¶55

Poloju Ramulu and Another v. Sri B.Krishnam Raju and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poloju Ramulu and Another v. Sri B.Krishnam Raju and 2 Others

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

M/s Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf and 6 others

M/s Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf

M/S Alfa Laval (India) Ltd., Vs Mr. E. S. M. Dass

Mohd. Saleem Vs Talla Sanjeeva Reddy and 5 Others

Mrs. VimalVasantKarwande Vs MohamemdGbouse Khan

M/s Sri Tulasi Industries Vs M/s Sri Sapthagiri Industries