Dismissed

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

Telangana HC16 Jun 2021CMA/240/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against a workmen's compensation award. The court held that the appeal raised factual challenges not disclosing a substantial question of law, noting that the medical certificates proved injury and the fixed wages were based on statutory ceilings.

What did the court decide?

CMA dismissed; No costs to parties.

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs Ulli… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^{TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH^{DAYOF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICECHALLA KODANDA RAM}

¶5

CMA NO: 24o OF² 004

¶6

Appeal filed under section^{30 of workmen'scompensationAct 1923 against} the order dated^{'19-11-2001in wc.500f 2001 0n the file of the commissioner for} workmen compensation^{andAssistantcommissioner of Labour, at Nizamabad.}

¶7

Between:

¶8

The New lndia Assurance^{Co.Ltd, rep.byits Branch ManagerMain road'Nirmal'} Adilabad District.

¶9

...APPELLANT/OPP PartY^No.2

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Ulli Sudhakar Goud^{S/o.GangadharDriverof Jeep-B No MH-26-1256} ild.oJ,lin-r-rr"g*,N-izimaoSo.^{...RESPoNDENTS/APPLIoANTS}

¶12

2 Shaik Habeeb, s/o.^{SK.Hameed Owner of Jeep B'No MH-26-1256'} ;;i;;;;;;;;ili, 6okar village and rq ,^{Nandeb District R-2 Disd for Defaultvide} Court Ordei daled^{1 51 1 21201 5}

¶13

...RESPONDENT/OPP^{PARTY No'1}

¶14

CMP. NO : 3763^OF2002

¶15

Petition under section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in^{support of the petition, the High Court may be pleasedto} .rtpunJ tn" operation^{including execution proceedingsif any of the orderdt.19-11-} iooi- p"ssea' in^{wc.SO/ol by the Hon'ble} ..commissioner^{for workmens} -ompensation and Asst.Commissioner of labour at Nizamabad pending'

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant^{:SRl. KOTASUBBARAO}

¶17

Counsel for the^{Respondent 1: SRl. K M MAHENDER REDDY}

¶18

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶20

c.M.A. No.24O of2OO4

¶21

JUDGMENT:

¶22

This Appeal by the Insurance Company was fiied questioning the order dated 19.11.2001 in W.C. Case No. 50 of 2OO1 (NF) on the lile of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad.

¶23

The said W.C. case was filed by the applicant - driver on jeep bearing Registration No. MH-26-1256 under the respondent - owner; that during the course of employment, he claimed to have sustained multiple injuries, resulting which, he is unable to attend the regular duties. It is stated, the applicant was paid Rs.4,000/per month as salary.

¶24

The Commissioner, placing reliance on Ex.A3 - Injury certificate which shows the age of the applicant as 35 years and Ex.A4 - disability certificate, which shows partial permanent disability as 80%0, awarded Rs. 1 ,8 1,978/ - towards compensation to be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order.

¶25

Heard .Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and Sri K.M. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the applicant.

¶26

The substantial question of law raised in the grounds of appeal is 'the accident did not occur during the course of emplogment and the disabilitg has not been proued'. A perusal of the grounds raised does not disclose any substantial question of law, as challenge made in this Appeal is essentially in respect of the questions of fact. There is no dispute that the claimant had suffered injury, as evidenced by the certificates issued by the

¶27

¶28

competent medical doctors. However, keeping in view the nature oI duties being discharged by the applicant and also keeping in view the statutory ceiling of Rs.2,000/_, the Authority had fixed the wages as Rs.2,000/- per month. Hence, no interference need be warranted in the order under Appeal on that count.

¶29

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is therefore, dismissed. No

¶30

costs.

¶31

M iscellaneous petitions , if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶32

Sd/.K.SAILESHI ASSISTANT //TRUE COPY// L!) SECTION OFFICER'IFGISTRAR

¶33

To,

¶34

'1 . The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, at Nizamabad.^{(with records)}

¶35

One CC to SRl. KOTA SUBBA^RAOAdvocate IOPUC]

¶36

One CC to SRl. K M MAHENDER^{REODYAdvocate} IOPUCI

¶37

Two CD Copies

¶38

HIGH^COURT

¶39

DATE^{D : 1 610612021}

¶40

ORDER

¶41

CMA.No.240 of²⁰⁰⁴

¶42

{
1nb sI af€
q.
q
oJ
r-) 011 JUIM
*
I
, DESPAT i.

¶43

DISMISSING THE C.M.A.

¶44

NO COSTS

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

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

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

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