Partly allowed

Ellowad Gyanobha v. Md. Shafiuddin and Another

Telangana HC17 Mar 2022CMA/1054/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this appeal partly, enhancing workmen's compensation by correcting the wage rate evidence. It also affirmed the entitlement of interest from the accident date based on the principle laid down in Saberabti Faktabhai Shah.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced based on Rs.2,500/- monthly wage; balance amount with interest from accident date to be deposited by Insurance Company.

Ellowad Gyanobha Vs Md. Shafiuddin and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

f i

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶6

C.M.A. NO:1 054 0F 2010

¶7

Appeal under Section 30 of W.C.Act, against the JudgmenU decree in w.c.No. 139 of 2004 dated 19110t2o10 on the file of the court of the commissioner for workmen's compensation and Deputy commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Ellowad. Gyanobha, S/o. Babya, Occ: Ex-Labour, Rl/o. Kamareddy, District Nizamabad-A.P. ...APPELLANT/ CLAIMANT

¶10

AND

¶11

Md. Shafiuddin, S/o. Sadiq Ali, Occ: Owner of Tractor, FUo. lndranagar Colony, Kamareddy, Distri;t Nizamabad_A.p.^'

¶12

New lndia Assuran'ce co. Ltd., H.No. 2-11-g0l2, weekry Bazaar, Kamareddy, District Nizamabad-A.p.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶14

For the Appellant : SMT K.SARALA MAHENDER REDDY, Advocate

¶15

For the Respondents :

¶16

The Court delivered the following: JUDGIVENT

(

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA CTVIL M APPEAL NO. T o54 0F 2010

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Challenging the order dt. 19.10.2010 passed in W.C. No. 139 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.

¶25

It is the case of the applicant/appellant was a labourer and he was employed by the l"t respondent on his Tractor & Trailer bearing No.APJ-5046 & APB-1970. On t3.12.1999, on the instructions of the 1"r respondent, the applicant/appellant was proceeding as a labourer on the said Tractor to bring bricks from Rameshwarpally thanda and at about 2.OO p.m. when it reached near Shabdipur thanda of Kamareddy, the driver of the said Tractor drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against electric pole, due to which, the applicant, and three other labourers received multiple and grievous injuries. Since the applicant/appellant suffered fracture and multiple injuries all over his body, immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital,

¶26

¶27

2 PSS,J CMA No. lO54 of20 10

¶28

Kamareddy, and later he took treatment with private doctors. The applicant/appellant Iiled the application for grant of compensation of Rs.2,5O,0OO/-.

¶29

¶30

After adducing evidence and marking exhibits, the learned Assistant Commissioner granted an amount of Rs.1,16,223/- towards compensation. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant/appellant preferred this Appeal.

¶31

Heard argrrments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the 2"d respondent/Insurance Company.

¶32

The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the Commissioner erred in taking the minimum wages instead of taking the wages as Rs.3,OOO/- per month as claimed by the appellant/ claimant and also erred in not granting interest @12% p.a. from the date of accident till realization.

¶33

respondent/Insurance Company contended that as the Assistant Commissioner has rightly passed the order, it needs no interference by this Court.

¶34

¶35

' *o. , oro ,rt"o"ii "ro 7. A perusal of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour shows that I "t respondent is the .3|.fl "y^{c.k)_-^{ a_\ t}r,} owner ol the vehicle I and in his counter, the l st respondent L admitted the employment of the applicant/appellant and further stated that he paid salary of Rs.2,5OO/_ per month and also admitted that accident occurred during the course of employment. The salary certificate is filed under Ex.Ag. The Assistant Commissioner erred in not considering the same, and has wrongly taken the minimum wages as Rs.l,9Z2/_. Thus, the wages of the applicant/appelant has to be modified as Rs.2,5OO/- per month.

¶36

The applicant/appeflant is entitled for compensation as follows:

¶37

Rs. 2 500 / -x6 OVox4 So/ox 2 I 6.g 1 = Rs. 1,46,4 I 4 / _

¶38

The Assistant Commissioner directed the Insurance Company as well as the owner of the vehicle i.e. l"t respondent to deposit Rs.1,16,223/_ within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which, it carries interest @l2ok p.a. But, as per the decision of the Supreme court in the case of SABERABTBI YAKT,BBHAI SHAIKH V/s I{ATIONAL

¶39

¶40

PSS CMA No.lO54 of 2Ol0

¶41

INSURANCE COMpAIyyr, the applicant/appellant is entitled \ I for interest @ l2o/o per €rnnum from the date of accident to the date of realisation. In this case, the amount was already deposited by the Insurance Company and thus, the applicant is entitled to interest @ r20/o per Ernnum from the date of accident till the date of such deposit. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance amount with interest accrued thereon within a period of one month from the date of the order, and on such deposit, the applicarrt/appellant is entitled to withdraw the sarne.

¶42

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. There sha_ll be no order as to costs.

¶43

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶44

2014 (2) SCC 298

¶45

Sd/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY// SEC OFFICER

¶46

¶47

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

¶48

One CC to Smt K.Sarala Mahender Reddy, Advocate (OPUC)

¶49

Two CD Copies

¶50

One Spare Copy Kl.

HIGH COURT

DATED:1710312022

1 tit S Tn i4i
u 1 6 il]t. 2[22
sr.4.ic1

¶55

ORDER

¶56

CMA.No.1054 ot 2O1O

¶57

PARTLY ALLOWING THE^{CMA WITHOUTCOSTS.}

¶58

^\ uX
@ *J2'

Ellowad Gyanobha v. Md. Shafiuddin and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ellowad Gyanobha v. Md. Shafiuddin 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

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.

Chepoor Ravi, Nizamabad Vs Abdul Rasheed, Nizamabad and Ano

Bandari Srinivas Vs M.Vasuder and 2 Ors.