In an appeal against the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation's award of Rs. 1,29,352, the High Court dismissed the National Insurance Company's challenge regarding the claimant's driving license validity and the quantum of compensation awarded for injuries.
The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs is passed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR oF TELANGANA o'
""oT*tot"HE
THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND rwEr.rrv br.ri
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA R.AM
CM AN 3 oF2 04
Appear fired Under section 30 0f workmen's compensation Act against the order dated 21 .06.2004 made in w.c.case.No.1 14 ot 2003 on the fire of the commissioner for workmen's compensation and Assistant commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad-1.
Between:
National insurance co. Ltd, Represented by its Deputy lrranager, Hyderabad . A.p
...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT
AND
...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. N. MOHAN KRISHNA
Counsel for Respondent No.1: SRI CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY GOPIREDDY The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
A KO KODANDADA
A KO KODANDADA E STI THEHO,B CIvtL LL OUS E No.3522of )004
JUDGMENT:
In thisappealfiled by the NationalInsuranceCompany Limited' challengeis to the order dated 2l'06'2004passed by the Commissioner' Workmen'sCompensation,inW'C'Case No'114/2003'granting compensationof Rs.1,29,352l-to the claimant/injured for the injuries suffered in theaccidentthat occurredot22'07'2003'
Brieffactsofthecasearethattheclaimantfiledaclaimpetition before the Commissionerstatingthat he was employedas driver of the auto bearing No.AP-1 1V-6613belonging to Anwarulla Khan(2ndrespondent herein); thal on 22.07 .2003he was driving the auto from Chandrayangutta to Ravirala; that at Barlamadugumet with an accident and lost controlof the auto and the auto turned turtle;that in the accident the claimant suffered iniuries and therefore the respondents areliable to pay compensationof Rs.4,00,000/-.
On behalf of the claimant, the witnessesAWs' 1 and 2 were examined. and the documents Exs.A1 to A10 weremarked. On behalfof respondents, OPWs.1 and 2 were examined,and Ex.B1-insurance policy and Ex.B2-retumed covers sent toOP1 were marked.
The Commissioner, after considering theevidence available, awarded compensation of Rs.1,29,352Aagainstboth the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company filed thepresent appeal.
CKR, .
Heard the leamed counsel for the appellant_insurance company. and the learned counsel for the 1,1 respondent-claimant.
The factum of occurrence of accident and the claimantsuffering injuries in the said accident arenot in dispute.The principalground urged in this appeal is that respondentNo'1 was in possessionof non-transpotl vehicle driving license,whereas he was drivingan auto whichis a transpoft vehicle. It is also contendedthat the compensation awarded is excessive.
TheargumentofthelearnedcounselfortheappellantiSrefutedby the leamed counselfor the claimant,and the learned counselwould point out that asagainst the medicaldisabilitydeterminedby AW'2-doctorat 40Vo, theCommissionerhadtaken the loss of eaming capacity at 35% only' Leamed counselwould further submit that if at all anybody is aggrieved'it should bethe claimant whoshouldbe aggrieved and thereforeprays for dismissalof the aPPeal.
Having consideredthe respective submissions' and alsothe facts of the presentcase and the judgment of the Hon' ble SupremeCourtin MukundDewangan v' OrientalInsurance Co' Ltd'l' the contention raised bythe appellantinsurancecompany becomes insignificant'as in MukundDewangan,it was held that there is no requirementto obtain separateendorsementto drive hansportvehicle'and if a driver is holding licence todrivelight motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class withoutany endorsement to that effect' In thosecircumstances'
'(zorz)ra scc ee:
cma_3522-2004 CKR, J
3
following the rationalein the judgment in Mukund Dewangan'the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.There shall be no order as to costs. It is made clear that if thecompensationamount hasbeen deposited by the insurance company in terms ofSection4,A' of the Workmen's Compensation Act within the stipulated time, the insurance company cannot be mulcted with penalty. Miscellaneous petitions, if anypending, shall stand closed.
To,
//TRUE COPY//
SD/.B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR G,
SECTION OFFICER
HIGHCOURT
DATED:0310612021
JUDGMENT
S T A I
(
I
?011 o
loo 2$ JUL .L I
at
i
+(
D S PtJ
CMA.No.3522 ot 2004
DISMISSING THE C.M.A.
NO COSTS
,o/
7A)
))
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant's assertion regarding the non-transport vehicle driving license of the claimant and the excessive compensation warrant setting aside the commissioner's order.
Whether the holder of a light motor vehicle driving license is entitled to drive a transport vehicle without a separate endorsement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mukund Dewangan v Oriental Insurance Co LtdRelied on¶28
Mukund Dewangan v Oriental Insurance Co Ltd
2 provisions across 1 enactments
National Insurance Co. Ltd
S Sridhar
Challa Kodanda Ram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
