Allowed

M. Mallesh v. Ch. Ravinder Reddy and Another

Telangana HC3 Jun 2021CMA/3922/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal regarding workmen's compensation quantum. It increased the loss of earning capacity from 20% to 40% based on medical evidence and awarded statutory interest from one month of the accident date, overriding the Commissioner's decision.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.50,584/- to Rs.1,00,568/- with interest from one month of accident date.

M. Mallesh Vs Ch. Ravinder Reddy and Another — 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 JUSTICE^{CHALLA KODANDA RAM}

¶5

c.M .A. NO: 3922 OF²⁰⁰⁴

¶6

Appeal under Section 30^{of Workmen,s CompensatlonAct, againstthe order in} w,c.No.55 0f 2OO2 daled^{31112120030n the file of the commissioner for workmen's} Compensation and Assistant^{Commissioner of Labour-lV, Hyderabad'}

¶7

Between:

¶8

M.MALLESH, S/o. M.Yadagiri^{Labourer R/o. KasaramVillage, Yadagirigutta (Mandal)} Nalgonda Dist'

¶9

...APPELLANT/APPL'.ANT

¶10

AND

¶11

I.CH.RAV|NDERREDDY,S/o.MuthyamReddyF/o'11-83/'lBharathnagar Uppal, HYderabad-39.

¶12

z. ifi5 f.f'ew^f ndia Assurance^{Co. Ltd, Rept By Divisional Manager 41-Kareem}

¶13

Trade Center,^{Ranigun.i,Secunderabad} ...RES'ONoENTS/ RESpoNDENTS

¶14

For the Appellant^{: SRISUDARSHANS' REDDY, Advocate}

¶15

For the Respondent^{No'1: SMTA'ANASUYA' Advocate}

¶16

For the Respondent^{No.2 : SMT KALPANA EKBOTE' Advocate}

¶17

The Court delivered^{the following: JUDGMENT}

E N, L E D D c c P

]UDGMENT:

This is an^{appeal filed against the order dated31'12'2003} passed by the Commissioner,^{Workmen's Compensation'in W'C'No'55} of 2002.

¶22

Brief facts of^{the case are that the claimantfiled a claim petition} beforethecommissionerstatingthatheisemployedasalaboureron lorry bearing^{No.AP-28T-8103 belonging to the 1st respondent herein;} thaton20.o4,2oo2hewasdischarginghisduties,proceedinginthe said lorry from^{Chinnameduruto Hyderabad, carrying sand,and when} the lorry^{reached nearVanaparthy, another lorry bearingNo'AP-16T-} 6139 coming^{from oppositedirection dashed against the claimant's} lorry; that in^{the accidentthe claimant suffered injuries and therefore} claimed compensation^{of Rs 1,50,000/-against boththe respondents'}

¶23

Respondent^{No.1-ownerof the Iorry bearing No AP-28T-8103} filed counter^{affidavit admittingthe accident, employment of claimant} and the injuries^{suffered by the claimant in the accident'Respondent} No.2 filed counter^{affidavitdenying the avermentsand resistingthe} claim^petition.

¶24

On behalf of the^{claimant,the witnessesAWs'1to 3 were} examined, and^{the documentsExs.A1 to A8 were marked'No oral or} documentary^{evidence was adduced onbehalf ofboth the} respondents, except^{markingof Ex,Dlwhichis insurance policyissued} \ in favour of resPondent^No.1.

¶25

The Commissioner,^{after consideringthe evidenceand material} available,awardedatotalcompensationofRs'50'584/-againstboth

¶26

ct(R, J

¶27

the respondents. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, the claimant filed the present appeal.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant; and the learned counsel appearlng for the 2"d respondent-insurance company,

¶29

There is no dispute either with respect to the accident or injuries suffered by the claimant. The grievance of the appellant/claimant is that the Commissioner erred in reducing the loss of earning capacity without any basis, and that the Commissioner failed to grant any interest on the compensation awarded.

¶30

It is the contention of the learned counsel for^the appellant/claimant that as against^{the physicaldisability assessedat} 30o/obyAW.3-Dr.G.SubashRao,videEx.A3-disabilitycertificate.the commissioner^{had takenthe loss of earning capacityat only 200/o,} without there being^{any basis.It is contendedthat AW'3-Doctorhad} categorically stated^{that the claimant suffered injuryto right knee joint} and also fracture^{of anteriortibia spine' It is furthercontendedthat} AW-3certifiedthatbecauseoftheinjurytheappellantwouldhave problem in sitting^{and squatting and wouldnot be able to do heavy} work. It^{is alsocontendedthat the appellant beinga labourer, his} duties involve^{heavywork and lifting weights and due to the disability} he cannot do^{heavy work as he used to do before the accident'}

¶31

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

¶32

c ma_3922_2004 CKR, J

¶33

¶34

Having considered the^{respective submissions, in the factsof} the present case, as^{rightly contendedby the learned counselfor the} appellant, there is no basis^{for the Commissionerto reduce the loss of} earning capacity to^{2Oo/o which is against the medical evidence, and} therefore, keeping in view the nature of^{injuriesand the nature of job} of the claimant, it would be reasonable to take the loss of earning capacity at 400/o.

¶35

Taking the loss of earning capacity at 4Oo/o, the total compensation the appellant would be entiued would come to Rs.1,00,568/-, inclusive of Stamp Fee of Rs.1OO/- and Advocate Fee of Rs.500/-. Further, it is needless to mention, that the appellant would be entitled to statutory interest at lTo/o under Section a(A)(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and though the compensation amount is payabre from the date of accident tiI the date of deposit, in view of the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance company v. Siby Georgel, the interest is payabre from one month of the date of accident till the date of deposit.

¶36

Subject to the above, the appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall

¶37

stand closed.

¶38

(2012) 12S c 540

¶39

Sd/.B.S.CHIRANJEEVI \

¶40

JOINT REGISTRAR \ ,TRUE COPY// \-,''" SECTION OFFICER

¶41

To SECTION OFFICER 1 2. iff ilru;1":;:"J [: [l T""g:f o m p e n s at i o n a n d A s s i sta nt c o m m i s s i o n e r o r a :n" 99^{to Sri SudarshanS..ReOOy,} hOvocate (OPUC) 4. Hii Iwo ;i CD Cooies^{ls SnI fl iJf#rl AtJ}:,""#[13i,;""' 6. One Spare bopy Kj

¶42

HIGH COURT

¶43

DATED:03/06/2021

¶44

I tl 5 TAIg
k i'
+
0 7 JtiL202l o
*
,') ,r\1 f.

¶45

JUDGMENT

¶46

CMA.No.3922 of 2OO4

¶47

DISPOSING OF CMA WITHOUT COSTS.

¶48

M. Mallesh v. Ch. Ravinder Reddy and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Mallesh v. Ch. Ravinder Reddy and Another

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

B. Narsimhulu Vs Ch. Ravinder Reddy and Other

C. Mallesh Vs Ch. Ravinder Reddy