Allowed

B. Narsimhulu v. Ch. Ravinder Reddy and Other

Telangana HC3 Jun 2021CMA/2703/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal against the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner's order, the High Court increased the loss of earning capacity from 20% to 35% based on medical evidence and the claimant's nature of work, setting total compensation at Rs.88,071/-. The court also awarded statutory interest at 7% under Section 4(A)(3) payable from one month of the accident date.

What did the court decide?

Compensation increased to Rs.88,071/-; statutory interest at 7% from one month of accident date until deposit.

B. Narsimhulu Vs Ch. Ravinder Reddy and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTIGE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶5

C.M,A. NO: 2703 OF 2004

¶6

Appeal under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, against the Order in W.C.No.56 of 2002 dated 3111212003 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-lV, Hyderabad.

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

B. NARSItUHULU, S/o Pochaiah Labourer R/o Kasaram Village, Yadagirigutta^(l,4andal) Nallagonda (Dist.)

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

AND

¶11

1 CH. RAVINDER REDDY, S/o Muthyam Reddy R/o 11-83/1 Bharathnagar Uppal, Hyderabad-39

¶12

2 The New lndia Assurance Co. Ltd., rep. by Divisional Manager A1-Kareem Trade center' Raniguni' secunderabad

¶13

...RES'.NDENTS

¶14

For the Appellant : SRI SUDARSHAN S. REDDY, Advocate

¶15

For the Respondent No.2 : Ms. I.MAAMU VANI

¶16

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶17

TH E HON' BLE S RI USTICE CHA LLA KODANDA RAM

¶18

CI I L MISCELLAN EOUS APPE L No.2703 2004

¶19

JUDGMENT:

¶20

This is an appeal filed against the order dated 31.12.2003 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen,s Compensation, in W.C.No.56 of 2002.

¶21

Brief facts of the case are that the claimant filed a claim petition before the Commissioner stating that he is employed as a labourer on lorry bearing No.AP-2BT-8103 belonging to the 1st respondent herein; that on 20.04,2002 he was discharging his duties, proceeding in the said lorry from Chinnameduru to Hyderabad, carrying sand, and when the lorry reached near Vanaparthy, another lorry bearing No.Ap-16T6139 coming from opposite direction dashed agalnst the claimant,s lorry; that in the accident the claimant suffered injuries and therefore claimed compensatron of Rs,1,5O,O0O/- against both the resoondents.

¶22

Respondent No.1-owner of the lorry bearing No.Ap-2gT-g103 filed counter affidavit admitting the accident, employment of claimant and the injuries suffered by the claimant in the accident. Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit denying the averments and resisting the claim petition.

¶23

On behalf of the claimant, the witnesses AWs.1 to 3 were examined, and the documents Exs.A1 to A8 were marked, No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of both the respondents, except marking of Ex.D1 which is insurance policy issued in favour of respondent No.1.

¶24

The Commissioner, after considering the evidence and material available, awarded a total compensation of Rs.5O,584/- against both

¶25

the respondents.^{Aggrievedby the quantumofcompensation} awarded,^{the clalmant filedthe present appeal'}

¶26

Heard the^{learnedcounselfor the appellanfiand the learned} counsel appearing^{for the2nd respo ndent-insura nce company'}

¶27

There is no^{dispute either with respectto the accident or injuries} suffered^{by the clalmant.Thegrievanceof the appellant/claimantis} that the^{commissioner erred in reducingthe loss of earning capacity} without any^{basrs, and that the Commisslonerfailedto grantany} interest on^{the compensation awarded'}

¶28

It is the^{contention of the Iearned counselforthe} appellant/claimant^{that as against the physical disability at 250/o as} assessed^{by AW.3-Dr.G subash Rao' vide Ex'A3-dlsability certificate'} the Commissioner^{had takenthe loss of earning capacityat only 207o'} without there^{beingany basis' It is contended that AW'3-Doctorhad} categorically^{statedthat the claimant sufferedfracture of left clavicle} and treatment^{was given by clavicularbrace' and there is mal-union of} left clavicle^{resulting in stiffness in left shoulderand restrictionin} range of^{movement of left arm' It is furthercontendedthat the} appellant^{being a labourer,his duties involve heavywork and lifting} he cannot^{do heavyworkas he used} weights and^{due to the disability} to do before^{the accident'}

¶29

Learned^{Standing Counsel Sri Haranathfor the 2"d respondent} insurance^{company resistedthe appeal andcontendedthat the} Commissioner^{had rightlyappreciatedthe materialon record and the} appeal is^{liable to be dismissed' It is furthercontendedthatthe} appellant^{is not entitled to any interest'}

¶30

(

¶31

Havlng considered^{the respective submissions'in the factsof} the^present case,^{as rightly contendedby the learned counsel for the} appellant, there^{is no basisfor the Commissionerto reduce the loss of} earning capacity lo^{2)o/o whichis against the medical evidence and} therefore,^{keepingin viewthe nature of injuriesand the natureof job} of the claimant,^{it would be reasonableto take the loss of earning} capacity at 35%.

¶32

Taking the loss of^earning ca^pa city^at 35o/o, the^totaI compensation the^{aPPellantwould} be e ntitled would come^to Rs.B8,O71l-,^{inclusiveof Stamp Fee of Rs'100/- and AdvocateFee of} Rs.5OO/-. Further,^{it is needlessto mention, that the appellantwould} be entitled to statutory^{interestat 72o/o under section 4(A)(3) of the} Workmen's Compensation^{Act, and thoughthe compensation amount} is payable from^{the date of accident till the dateof deposit'in viewof} the^{judgment of the Hon'bleSupremeCourt in Oriental Insurance} company v' Siby^{Georgel,the interest is payablefromone monthof} the date of accident^{till the date of deposit'}

¶33

Subject to the above,^{the appeal is disposed ofThere shallbe} no order as to costs.^{Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending' shall}

¶34

stand closed. (2012 )12^SCC5 sd/-B.S.CHIRANJEEVI J OINT REGISTRAR

¶35

,TRUE^COPY//

¶36

SECTION^OFFICER

¶37

To t. Th" commissioner for workmen'scoTP::.,'ution and^{Assistantcommissionerof} ii["ri-iv,^{uvderabad(with records} 'rt'anv) '- " 41i"6'l aPUC) a^{'sf: ss[ #ii't^zili"',5:i3i}

¶38

Two^{CD CoPies}

¶39

One^{SPare CoPY} Kj.

¶40

HIGH COURT DATED:03/06/2021

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

CMA.No.2703 of 2004

¶43

1 rre ST4
o,
+
o
0 I lur ?.021 I
*
...<br>llc--

¶44

DISPOSING OF CMA WITHOUT COSTS.

¶45

7n4

B. Narsimhulu v. Ch. Ravinder Reddy and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Narsimhulu v. Ch. Ravinder Reddy and Other

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

D Susheela, Hyderabad Vs Mr. D T H H Prabhu, Hyderabad

D Susheela, Hyderabad Vs Dasari Taraka Hari Hara Prabhu, Hyderabad

M/S Data Cables Ltd, Jharkhand State Vs M/S Singareni Collieries Com. Ltd, Khammam Dist and 4 Others

National Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs S. Sridhar and Another

M. Mallesh Vs Ch. Ravinder Reddy and Another

C. Mallesh Vs Ch. Ravinder Reddy