Dismissed

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kolisetty Ramanjamma and 4 Ors.

Telangana HC8 Mar 2021CMA/492/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant insurance company challenged the compensation order, claiming labourers are not covered under the policy. The court held the appeal fails against established precedent. Interest at 12% per annum is granted from one month after the accident date till deposit.

What did the court decide?

Interest at 12% per annum from one month after the date of accident till the date of deposit.

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

IMONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶6

C.M.A. N 4 F 2009

¶7

Appeal under Section 30 of W.C.Act, against the Judgmenudecree in W.C.No.151 of 2003 dated 27103104 on the file of the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, at Nalgnda.

¶8

Betwee n:

¶9

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, rep by its Divisional l,4anager, Alankar Theater Road, Suryapet, Nalgonda District.

¶10

...APPELLANT/O,P,NO,2

¶11

AND

¶12

KOLISETTY RAMANJAMN/A. W/o.late Venkateswarlu Household

¶13

Kolisetty Upender, S/o.late Venkateswarlu aged 6 years

¶14

Kolisetty Raju, Sio.late Venkateswarlu aged 3 years

¶15

Kolisetty Rathamma, W/o.Bixamaiah,

¶16

[The^{Respondents 2 & 3 arebeing minors, rep by their natural mother and} guardian Kolisetty Ramanjamma, R-1 hereinl

¶17

(All are R/o.Thaduvai Village, lr,4unagala Mandal, Nalgonda District.) . . ,.. Respondentsi Claimants

¶18

Ch.Laxmaiah, S/o.not Known, aged Major Owner of Tractor/Trailor bearing Nos.AP 24E9092 & Trailor bearing No.AAG 6547 R/o.Akupamula Village, Munagala Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶19

(R5 dismissed vide Court Order dated 1314116)

¶20

...RESPONDENT/ OP No.1

¶21

For the Appellant : SRI KOTA SUBBA RAO, Advocate

¶22

For the Respondents :

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

i ;

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI ]USTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal is filed against the order dated 27.03.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen,s Compensation, in W.C.Case No.151 of 2OO3 (F).

¶28

Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant insurance company. None appeared for the respondents/cla im a nts though notlce was served ,

¶29

Learned Standing Counsel contends that since labourers are not covered under the insurance policy, the insurance company is not liable.

¶30

The issue with regard to the liability of the insurance company with respect to payment of compensation is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon' ble Supreme Court in National fnsurance Company v. Prembai^patell.

¶31

Further, in view of the judgment of Hon,ble Supreme Court in oriental rnsurance company v. Siby George2, finarity was given in siby George ( 1 supra) with respect to the issue that payment of compensation amount falls due and payable as on the date of accident. This was in line with the judgment of Supreme Court in pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata3.

¶32

lYy learned brother Justice A. Rajasheker Reddy had elaborately considered all the judgments cited by both the appellants as well as respondents in C.lv1.A,No.B71 of 2015, and by order dated 04.12.2015 had held that the appellant/claimant is entitled to tnterest at l2o/o per annum from the date of accident till the date of realisation. However, though the

¶33

I (2005) 6 SCC 172

¶34

? (20t2) t2 scc s40 ) ( r 976) i SCC 289

¶35

c ta 49: 100\ CKR. J \

¶36

¶37

amount of compensation^{is due on the date of accident,the liabilityto pay} interest arises only after one month from the date^{of accident. This is on} account of Section aA(3) of the Workmens Compensation^{Act, 1923.}

¶38

With respect to the contention of learned^{Standing Counsel that the} insurance company may not be mulcted with liability in cases where the appeal against the owner stood dismissed, and the owner having^not been made a^party respondent, the said contention is liable to^{be rejectedfor the} reason that the issue had already been dealt in C.M.A.No.871 of 2075, dated 04.12.2015, by referring to the^judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Meka Chakra Rao v. Yelubandi Babu Rao @ Reddemmao. The judgment of Division Bench being binding on this Court, and there being no reason for this Court to differ with the ratlonale in Meka Chakra, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel is rejected.

¶39

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. In view of the judgment in Siby George (l supra), the claimant is entitled to interest at 12a/o^per annum,^payable from one month after the date of accident till the date of deposit. It is made clear that wherever the compensation amount has been deposited in pursuance of the orders of Commissioner, the

¶40

payment of interest shall be reckoned from one month after the date of accident till the date oF deposit. luliscellaneous applications, if any pending,

¶41

shall also stand closed.

¶42

" 2001 (1) ALD 453

¶43

Sd/-K.SREENIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 6!

¶44

SECTIOilbFFICER

¶45

¶46

1 The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda. 2 One CC to Sri Kota Subba Rao, Advocate (OPUC) 3 Two CD Copies

K +,
,r/

HIGH COURT

DATED:08/03/2021

tl e 74 14:
(
e
oo:) 14 jU','l ?021 az
,/
t ,/

¶51

JUDGMENT

¶52

CMA.No.492 of'2009