Partly allowed

Chepoor Ravi, Nizamabad v. Abdul Rasheed, Nizamabad and Ano

Telangana HC17 Mar 2022CMA/1027/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that compensation should be calculated on 55% disability rather than the 50% awarded by the Commissioner, rejecting the insurer's reliance on minimum wages. The court allowed the appeal in part, increasing the compensation amount and awarding interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation amount enhanced to Rs. 1,94,508 based on 55% disability. Interest at 12% p.a. awarded from the date of accident until deposit.

Chepoor Ravi, Nizamabad Vs Abdul Rasheed, Nizamabad and… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE^{SEVENTEENTHDAYOF I/ARCH} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT , THE HONOURABLE^{SMTJUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA}

¶4

c.M.A. NO:1^{o27 0F 2010}

¶5

Appeal under^{Section30 of W C'Act,against the JudgmenU decree in} W.C.No.46 ol2OO4^{daled 2211012010on the file of the Court of the Commissioner for} Workmen'sCompensationandDeputyCommissionerofLabour'Nizamabad'

¶6

Between:

¶7

Chepoor Ravi,^{S/o. Ramulu' Occ: Ex-Driver,R/o (Vill) & (M)' Bhiknoor' Nizamabad} District, A.P.

¶8

..,APPELLANT/^CLAIMANT

¶9

AND

¶10

l. Abdul Rasheed,^{S/o. Mohd.Jain, Major, Occ: OwnerofAutoFl/o H'No 9-17-}

¶11

59, Shanthinagar,^{Nizamabad -A P'} ini^{Ol..i.ieo"uide Court Order dated19/04/1 6).}

¶12

New tndia Assuranc"^{Co. iiJ., Rep Uy Oivision6ltvlanager, Opp: Zilla} - Pirishad, Subashnagar' Nizamabad - O'1.rarODENTS/ RESpONDENTS

¶13

For the Appellant^{: SRI K.M.MAHENDER REDDY, Advocate}

¶14

Forthe Respondent^{No.2 : SRI T.RAMULU,Advocate}

¶15

The Court delivered^{the following: JUDG|/ENT}

¶16

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

¶17

CTVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1027^{OF 2O1q}

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

Challenging the order dt.22.lO.2O1.O^{passed inW.C.} No.46 of 2OO4 by the Commissioner for^Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of^Labour, Nizamabad, seeking enhancement of the^{compensation,this} Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed^{by the claimant.}

¶20

It-is the case of the applicant/appellant^{that he was} employed as a driver on the Auto bearing^{No.AP-25U-3470} belonging to the l"t respondent. On^2O.O4.2OOI, on^the instructions of l"t respondent, the applicant/appellant^was discharging his duties and when he^{reached near Sarangapur} Gram Panchayat Office, Nizamabad District,^{at about 10.00} a.m., while crossing another Auto^{bearingNo.AP-10T-2773,he} applied sudden break, due to which,^{the Autogot uncontrolled,} dashed two persons and therea-fter,^{the Auto turnedturtle,and} the applicant and others received multiple^{and grievous} injuries. Since the applicant/ appellant^{sufferedfracture and} multiple injuries all over his body,^{immediatelyhe was shifted} to Government Hospital, Nizamabad. Later,^{he took treatment}

¶21

2 PSS, CMA No.1027 of 2010

¶22

in private Hospital. The^{applicant/appellantfiled the} application for grant^{of compensation of Rs.5,O0,000/-'}

¶23

After adducing evidence^{and markingpxhibits, the} learned Assistant Commissioner^{gra-nted anamountof} Rs.1,77,679 l- towards^{compensation. Aggrieved by the said} order, the applicant/appellant^{preferredthis Appeal'}

¶24

Heard arguments^{of learned counsel for the appellant and} learned counsel appearing^{for the 2'd respondent/Insurance} Company.

¶25

The learned counsel^{for theapplicant/appellant} contended that the^{Commissioner erred in taking the minimum} wages instead of taking the^{wages as Rs.4,500/-per month as} claimed by the applicant/^{appellant and also erred in not} granting interest @12% p.a. from the^{date of accident till} realization.

¶26

respondent/ Insurance Company^{contendedthat asthe} Assistant Commissioner has rightly^{passed the order, it needs} no interference by this Court.

¶27

A perusal of the order^passed by^{the Assistant} Commissioner of Labour shows that^{applicant/appellantwas}

¶28

PSS,J CMA No.l027 of 2010

¶29

¶30

engaged as driver on the Auto bearing No.Ap-25U-347O and met with an accident on 20.04.2003. In the counter filed by the owner i.e. l"t respondent, he admitted the employment of the applicant/appeilant and further stated that he paid salary of Rs.4,000/- per month, apart from Batta of Rs. 1O/- per day and issued Ex.A9 Salary certilicate, but he was not examined before the Assistant Commissioner and thus, the Assistant has rightly taken the minimum wages of Rs.2 ,834 /- and it needs no interference.

¶31

Relarding the disability, the applicant/appellant got examined AW.2 Dr. V. Akhilesh, Government Headquarters Hospital, Nizamabad, and he assessed disability at 55% (fifty Iive) permanent and partial. But, the Commissioner has reduced the disability to 5O% without assigning any reasons thereof.

¶32

Admittedly, the applicant/appellant was the driver and he sustained multiple injuries and the disability was assessed as 557o permanent partial. Considering his functional disability, I feel it reasonable to assess the loss of earning capacity as 55o/o instead of 50%. Therefore, the amount of compensation has to be calculated @ 55o/o.

¶33

PSS, CMA No.1027 of 2010

¶34

¶35

1 0. The applicant/ appellart is entitled^{for compensationas} follows:-

¶36

Rs.2834 X 60l iOO X 55/ 100^{X 2o7 .98} =^1,94,508 l-

¶37

The Assistant Commissioner has^{directed the Insurance} Company l2"d respondent as well as^{the owner of the vehicle} i.e. 1"t respondent to deposit the amount^{within 3O days from} the date of receipt of the order,^{failingwhich, it carries interest} @12o/o^{p.a. But, as per the decision of the SupremeCourt in} the case of SABERABIBI YAKUBBHAI^{SHAIKH V/s} NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANYI, the applicant/appellant is entitled for interest @ 12% per annum from^{the date of} accident titl date of realisation. But, the^Insurance Company/Respondent No. 2 has already^{deposited the amount.} The applicant herein is entitled for interest @ 12%^{per annum} from the date of acciderrt tiil the date of such deposit.^The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the^{balanceamount} within one month from the date of order and on such deposit, the applicant/ appellant is permitted to withdraw the^balance amount along with interest.

¶38

'^zota 1z;^{scc zet}

¶39

)

¶40

PSS,J CMA No.1027 of 2010

¶41

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in

¶42

part. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applicalions, if any,

shail stand closed.

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/-K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

SECTION OFFICER

'1- The Commissloner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad. (with records)

¶53

One CC to Sri K.M.Mahender Reddy, Advocate (OPUC)

¶54

One CC to Sri T.Ramulu, Advocate (OPUC)

¶55

Two CD Copies

¶56

One Spare Copy

Ki.J

HIGH COURT

DATED:1710312022

e SIAIF
c
(
(v
7-,,
?$2?
c).Jar 1 x luL
DESPAT a

¶61

ORDER

¶62

CMA.No.1027 ol 2010

¶63

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS.

¶64

qfl
t1
tr

Chepoor Ravi, Nizamabad v. Abdul Rasheed, Nizamabad and Ano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chepoor Ravi, Nizamabad v. Abdul Rasheed, Nizamabad and Ano

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

Ramesh Chandra Shivanjiya , Ramesh Vs Kewal Singh and Ano

The Employees State Insurance Corporation, Hyd. Vs M/S. Bulchand and Company, Hyderabad.

National Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad. Vs M. Rajender Reddy and Another

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt.Yasmeen and 3 Ors.

Ellowad Gyanobha Vs Md. Shafiuddin and Another

Bandari Srinivas Vs M.Vasuder and 2 Ors.