Dismissed

The National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Mr. Ippa Sailoo and Another

Telangana HC8 Mar 2021CMA/603/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

These appeals by the insurance company challenged workmen's compensation awards granted to labourers involved in a motor vehicle accident. The court held that labourers are covered under the policy and dismissed the appeals, affirming liability while clarifying interest payment rules under Section 4A(3).

What did the court decide?

The appeals were dismissed without costs. Interest at 7% per annum from one month after the date of accident till the date of deposit is granted.

The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Mr… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA^KODANDARAM

¶5

C.M.A. NOS: 601.602 AND 603 OF 2017

¶6

cMA NO.601 0F 2017:

¶7

Appeal under Section 30 of^{W.C.Act, againstthe Order/ decreein} w.c.No..l68/2004 dated 03/03/2010 0n^{the file of the courtof the commissioner for} Workmen's Compensation and Deputy^{Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad'}

¶8

Between:

¶9

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.^{LTD., Br. Office, B. Lakshmi Raj Complex, Jawahar} Road, Nizamabad.

¶10

...APPELLANT/OPPOSITE PARTY^NO.2 AND

¶11

Md.ILLYAS, S/o.Md. lsmail, Ex.^{labour, RJo.Mallapally,Nizamabad Town and} District. (R1 disd. for default vide Court Order dated^2012115)

¶12

.......Respondent/ Applicant

¶13

Mr. Syed Madar, Sio. Syed^{PeerSahab, Owner of Lorry bearingNo. AAJ 6528,} R/o l/akloor' Nizmabad^{ttttanoat ana.o5$$!oNDENT/} opposrrE pARTy No.1

¶14

CMAMP. NO: 1586 OF 2010

¶15

Petition under section 151^{of cPCpraying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed therewith,^{the High court maybe pleased to stay the execution of} orders^passed in WC No.¹⁶⁸ ol^{2004 dated03-03-2010 by the Hon'ble} Commissioner for Workmen's^{Compensationand Deputy Commissionerof Labour} N iza mabad.

¶16

For the Appellant : SRI^{KOTASUBBA RAO' Advocate}

¶17

For the Respondent No.2 :^NoneAppeared

¶18

CMA NO 6020F 2017:

¶19

Appeal under section^{30 of w.c.Act,against the order/decreein w.c.No.166of} 2004 dated 03/03/2010^{on the file of the court of the commissionerfor workmen's} Compensation and^{Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad'}

¶20

Between:

¶21

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE^{CO. LTD., Br. Office,B. Lakshmi Raj complex,Jawahar} Road' Nizamabad

¶22

...AppELLANT/oppostrE^PARTYNo'2 AND

¶23

Alakunta^{Sydamma, W/o'sailoo'Occ: Ex Labour'Fl/oSubashnagar' Nizamabad} Town and iii'^{ljlSo']#ir"??ult District'vide court order dated20I 02t1 5)} . . .., Respondent/Applic-ant

¶24

Mr. Sved^{Madar,S/o Syed Peer} !-ul?P;-O,Yn"'^{of Lorry bearing No AAJ 6528'} ' iilo.-ilri}<roor, Nizmabad lv]andal and.Drslr5lorar, opPoslTE PARTY No.1

¶25

CMAMP.^{NO: 1567 OF 2010}

¶26

petition under sectron 151^{0f cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit^{filed therewith,the HighCourt maybe pleased to stay the execution of} orders^{passed in WC No'166 of 2004dated 03-03-2010by the Hon'ble Commissioner} for Workmen's^{Compensation and DeputyCommissioner of LabourNizamabad'}

¶27

For the^{Appellant: SRI KOTA SUBBA RAO' Advocate}

¶28

For the^{Respondent No'2 : None Appeared}

¶29

cMA NO.603^{0F 2017:}

¶30

Appeal^{under Section 30 of W'C'Act'against the Order/ decreein W C'No'165 of} 2004 dated^{03/03/2010 on the file of the court of the Commissionerfor Workmen's} Compensation^{and Deputy Commissioner of Labour' Nizamabad'}

¶31

Between:

¶32

THE NATIONAL^{INSURANCECO' LTD'' Br' Office' B Lakshmi Raj Complex' Jawahar} Road, Nizamabad. ...A''ELLANT/OPPOSITE^PARTYNO.2

¶33

...A''ELLANT/OPPOSITE^PARTYNO.2 AND

¶34

1 t,4r. looa Sailoo,^{S/o'sailoo' Ocq Ex Labour' Fl/o'H'No'2-11-257' Ambedkar} ' Coro[!, Nr-iiimibad rown and District ....,..Respondent/Applicant

¶35

Mr. Sved^{Madar, S/o Syed Peer99I?P,:9Yn"'ofLorry bearirg No AAJ 6528'}

¶36

RJo.-Mat<toor, Nizmabad Mandal and.D[[IcIONDENT/ OpPOSITE PARTY NO.1

¶37

CMAMP.^{NO:1585OF2010}

¶38

petition under section 151 0f cpc^{praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court maybe pleased to stay the executionof} orders^{passed in WC No 165 of 2OO4 dated03-03-2010by the Hon'ble Commissioner} for Workmen's^{Compensation and DeputyCommissioner of LabourNizamabad'}

¶39

For the^{Appellant: SRI KOTASUBBA RAO' Advocate}

¶40

For the Respondent^{No'2 : NoneAppeared}

¶41

The Court^{delivered the following: JUDGMENT}

¶42

L l'

¶43

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶44

CIVIL MIS CELLANEOUS APPEA Nos.6O1.602 and 6 3 ol 2Ol7

¶45

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶46

Heard Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant in all these appeals. None appeared for the respondent No.1 Claimants,

¶47

As the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 08.04.2004 involving the lorry bearing No.AAJ 6528 being common to all the three appeals, they are heard together and taken up for disposal by this common judgment. The National Insurance Company Limited is the appellant in all the appeals.

¶48

CMA No.601 af 2017 is filed against the order dated 03.03.2010 in W.C.No.168 of 2004 granting compensation of Rs.L,76,430/- to the respondent No.1-claimant; CN4A No.602 of 2017 is filed against the order dated 03.03.2010 in W.C.No.166 of 2004 granting compensation of Rs.t,74,027/- to the respondent No.1-claimant; CMA No.603 of 2077 is filed against the order dated 03.03.2010 in W.C.No.L65 of 2004 granting compensation of Rs.1,66,396/- to the respondent No.1-claimant by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation.

¶49

Brief facts of the case are that the claimants who are working as labourers on the lorry bearing No.AAl 6528 belonging to respondent No.2 herein (respondent No.1 in the Claim petitions) filed the respective Claim petitions before the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, stating that on 08.04.2004, they were discharging duty as labourers on the^{said Iorry} proceeding from Banswada to Patancheru to bring the load of Cement bricks, and when the lorry reached Kamalapur Shivar^{at about 9:00 Plt4,} ... the driver, in an atternpt to avoid dashing an old woman crossing the road, had applied slldden brakes due to^{which he lost control overthe} lorry and dashed two^persons travelling^{on a cycleand the lorry turned}

¶50

ari R.^l

¶51

turtle to the left side thereby the claimants fell down and sustained grievous injuries. They claimed compensation against the owner and the insurance company (the appellant herein). The Police, Shankarampet Police Station, Medak District, registered a case in FIR No.32 of 2004 under Section 337 IPC, and also filed the charge sheet.

¶52

The Commlssioner, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence available on record, awarded compensation in the claim petitions as stated above, making the owner and the insurer jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company filed the present appeals.

¶53

The main ground urged by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-insurance company is that labourers are not covered under the insurance policy, and therefore the insurance company is not liable.

¶54

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 Insurance Company v. Prembai Patell. Further, whatever may be the position prior to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company v. Siby George2, flnality was given in Siby George (2 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.

¶55

My learned brother Justice A. Rajasheker Reddy had elaborately considered all the judgments cited by both the appellants as well as respondents in C.lY.A.No.87l of 2075, and by order dated 04.12.2015

¶56

' 1zoos1^{6 scc} rz

¶57

' (2012) 12 SCC 540

¶58

'ltezoy^{I scczso}

¶59

oma_601, 602 and 603_2017 CKR,J

¶60

¶61

had held that the claimant is entitled to interest at 72o/o per annum from the date of accident till the date oF realisation. Though the payment of compensation is due on the date of accident, the liability to pay interest arises only from one month after the date of accident. This is on account of Section 4A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

¶62

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 rejected for the reason that the issue had already been dealt in C.M.A.No.871 of 2015, dated 04.12.2015, by referring to the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Meka Chakra Rao v. Yelubandi Babu Rao @ Reddemma4. The^judgment of Division Bench being binding on this Court, and there being no reason for this Court to differ with the rationale in Meka Chakra (4 supra), the contention of the learned Standing Counsel is rejected.

¶63

Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. No costs. In view of the judgment in Siby George (2 supra), the claimants are entitled to interest at 72o/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 payment of interest shall be reckoned from one month after the date of accident till the date of deposit. lv'liscella^neous applications, if any^pending, shall stand closed.

¶64

" 2001^(1)ALD45s

¶65

Sd/.K.SREENIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// Lao SECTION OFFICER

¶66

To I The Commissioner for Workmen's^{Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of} Labour, Nizamabad. 2. One CC to Sri Kota Subba Rao,^{Advocate (OPUC)} 2 Two CD Copies Kj

¶67

HIGH COURT

¶68

DATED:08/03/2021

¶69

zrffiN
ft ...<br>/a
0 3 i'Jti ?cfl

¶70

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶71

CMA.Nos.601,602 and 603 of2017

¶72

DISMISSING THE ALL CMA's WTTHOUT COSTS.