Partly allowed

Aaldhi Gangaram and Anr. v. Sri Chinna Ganga Ram and Anr.

Telangana HC8 Mar 2022CMA/1068/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common judgment dismissed the insurance company's appeal and partly allowed the workmen's compensation claimants' appeal. The court affirmed the Assistant Commissioner's compensation quantum but granted interest at 12% p.a. from the accident date until payment.

What did the court decide?

Claimants entitled to 12% interest per annum on compensation from date of accident until deposit.

Aaldhi Gangaram and Anr. Vs Sri Chinna… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY. THE EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶6

C.M.A. NOS: 1068 OF 2^{004ANO 12030F2011}

¶7

Appeals under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation^{Act, against the Orderin} W.C.No.225 ol 2002 daled 3111012003 on^{thefile of the Commissioner for Workmen's}

¶8

Compensation and Assistant Commissioner^{of Labour, Nizamabad.}

¶9

A NO.'1068 0F 2

¶10

Between:

¶11

Aaldhi Gangaram, S/o. Yadhanna

¶12

Aaldhi Yel!avva, Wo.Gamgaram

¶13

Both are R/o.Pachala Naduku Village^{VelpurN,4andalNizamabadDistrict.}

¶14

.,.APPELLANTS/CLAIMANT

¶15

AND

¶16

'1. Sri Chinna Ganga Ram, S/o.Ganga Ram Owner R/o.Pachala Naduku village Velpur lr,4andal Nizamabad District.

¶17

The Divisional Manager, The United^{lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd., Nizamabad} District.

¶18

(Appeal against R1 is dismissed for default vide Court Order dated^18/03/2016) ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶19

cMA NO.1203 0F 2014:

¶20

Between:

¶21

The Divisional Manager, United lndia lnsurance^{Co. Ltd., Nizamabad.}

¶22

......AppellanU Opposite Party^No.2

¶23

And

¶24

Aaldhi Gangaram, S/o. Yadhanna

¶25

Aaladhi Yellavva, Wo.Gangaram

¶26

Both are R/o.Pachala Naduku^{Villaqe VelpurlvlandalNizamabadDistrict.} ...RESPONDNETS/ APPLICANTS

¶27

3 Sri S.Chinna Ganga^Ram, S/o.Ganga^{RamOwner of Tractor bearing No.AP-25-} H-2401, R/o.Pachala Naduku village^{Velpur Mandal NizamabadDistricl.} ....RespondenU Opposite Party^No.'l

¶28

For the Appellant in^C MA No.'1068 ol^{2004 and Respondent in CMA No.1203 of} 2011 :SRl K.M.MAHENoER REoDY,^Advocate

¶29

For the Respondent No.2 in ClvlA^{No.1203of 2011andAppellant in CMA No.1068} of 2004: SRI E.VENUGOPAL^{REODY,Advocate}

¶30

The Court delivered the^following: COMMON^JUDGMENT

¶31

HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶32

C.M.A.N s.1068 of2004 & 03 of 2011

¶33

COMMON IUDGMENT:

¶34

Since the issue involved in both the^{appealsis one} and the same and they are being heard together^and disposed of bywayof this common^judgment.

¶35

For the sake of convenience, the panies hercin^rvill

¶36

be referred to as arraled before the Court^below.

¶37

CM.A.No.1068 of 2004 is filed bvthe claimants¹ and2., who are the parents of deceased-Aaladhi^Shankar,

¶38

stating that their son was engaged by the 1"^respondent- owner of the vehicle, as driver and he went to duty on 17.7.20A2 for cultivating the land of the L" respondent and at about 11.00 a.m, the tractor slipped and tumed turtle, due to which, their son received grievotr.s^injuries and died on the spot. Hence, they have fiied \Xi.C.No.225

¶39

¶40

of 2AO2 before the Commissioner^{for \Torkmen's}

¶41

Compensation and fusistant^{Commissioner of Labour,} Nizamabad, seeliing compensation^{of Rs.5,00,000/- for} the death of their son.

¶42

-+ The fint respondent,^{who is the owner of the said} vehicle, filed counter-affidavit^{statingthat the deceased} rnet with an accident^{while discharying the dutiesas} driver in his agricultural^{land and he paid Rs.5,000/ - p.m.} towards salary and Rs.sol-^{as bamaand that the said} vehicle was insured with the^{2nd respondent-Insurance} C-ompany and it^{was in force as on the date of accident.} The second respondent-Insurance^{Companyalso filed} counter by resisting the^{claim made by the claimants,} denied the allegations including^{the employnent of the} deceased, apan from the^{age, and income'}

¶43

¶44

Basing on the above pleadings,^{the Assistant} Commissioner of^{Labour,Nizamabad,framedthe}

¶45

foilowing issues.

¶46

)flrether the^{deceasedwas a workmanwithinthe} meaning of the Act^{and rvhether he diedduring the} coune of employnent^{under opposite panvNo.l?}

¶47

If so, what is the^{monthlv t',rges clrawnby the} deceased workman?

¶48

\Mrat was the^age of the^{worknun at the timeof his} death?

¶49

\Xltrether the applicants^{are entitledto compensrtion?} If so, to what extent?.

¶50

6 During enqury, on behalf^{of the claimantstheTrxt} claimant was examined^{as PW.1 and Exs.A1 to A8 were} marked. On behalf of^{the resPondents, owner of the} vehicle was examined^{as RW1 and AssistantDivisional} Manager of the Insurance Company^{q/as examined as} RV2 and no documents^{were markedon their behalI-.} 7. After considering the oral^{and documentary} evidence, the fusistant^{Commissioner ofLabour,}

¶51

¶52

Nizamabad, awarded a sum of Rs.2,,8A,295/AS

¶53

compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Crmpany preferred CN4A No.1203 of 2011 and the claimants filed C.M.ANo.1068 of 2A04 seeking 1r erulancement of compensatron.

¶54

Now, the point for consideration is:

¶55

(l)Vhether dre quantum of compensation awarded by the Assistant Crrrmrissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, is excess ive?

¶56

(2)To what extent, the claimants are entitled to)

¶57

POINTNos.I &2: The deceased was engaged as

¶58

dnver by the 1't respondent and on 17.07.2002, wile driving the tractor bearing No.AP 25 H 2401 for cultivating the land of the 1', respondent, the ffactor slipped and turned turtle or the deceased, due to which, the deceased received grievous injuries and died on the spot. The mother of the deceased, who was examined as P\f1, in her evidence deposed that her son was having

¶59

¶60

valid driving licence to drive the Tractor and he died during the course of his emplo)4nent. The o'x,ner of the tractor, who was examined as RV1, in his evidence deposed that the deceased was his driver and he was hoiding valid driving licence and he paid fu.5,000/- per month as salary and Rs.50/- per day as batta. In his cross-examination, R\X/1 stated that he has not filed appointment letter showing that he emplolecl the deceased as Driver on his tractor, br,rt he simply stated that he paid Rs.5,000/- as salary per month and he denied the suggestion that there is no relationship berween him and the driver as emploi,er and emplovee.

¶61

The Insurance Company examined the fusistant Divisional Manager and he stated that the insured claimed for own damage for his vehicle, but it was repudiated as the driving licence was not produced.

¶62

¶63

Thertforc, the Insurance Company issued notice to the claimants as well as to the owner of the tractor, but they have failed to produce,the same. They also summoned RTA, but, he did not turn up and submit any driving licence particulan of the driver and as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 11. Leamed counsel appearing for the Insurance C-ompany contended that the driver of the vehicle has no valid driving licence and thus, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation; that there is no emplolee and employer relationship between the deceased and the owner of the vehicle; that the fusistant C-omrnissioner of Labour erred in fixing the income of the deceased *. I<s.2,604/tn the absence of any r .l clocunrentary evrdence.

¶64

¶65

Learnecl c<.rtrnsel appearinr for clairnanrs 1 and 2 contencled rl'rat the Assisrant Commissioner of Labour, \izanrabacl. has righrh' prrssecl ti'rc orcler ancl ir neecls no irrtcr ttrencc bl this Court. Lcarncd counscl ir-rrther

¶66

contcnded thar rhe claimanrs are enridecl to interest @ 12o/o p.a from rhe date of accident tili rhe date of r:caliza tion.

¶67

13.^{(lonsiclerin{r} rhe er.idence of the owner of thc r-chiclc i.c., 1,, rcspondent and in thc abserrcc oI conrran' cr.idence, this Courr finds that thc Insurance (iompanr-is Iiable ro pav thc colnpensati(>rr ancl tl-rc claunants are cntitlccl to interesr @ 12%o pcr annurn trom tl-re date of acciclcnt till rl-re clarc oI realization.

¶68

I +. l.carncd counscl appearing for the insur-ance compan\r contcnded that the insr:rance company has alrcady deposited the amourrt in the Courr.

¶69

¶70

1-5. In r.ierv of tl-re said subn-Lission. tl-rc clainrants ar:c

¶71

cntitled for tl-re intercst @ 12o/o per annun-] fror-n thc clatcr oI acciclcnt till t1-rc datc of clcposit of the ar-nount.

¶72

Rcuarciing inconrc o[ the dcceascc], thc ou'ner oi thc r-ehicle- 1 'r rcspondcnt statccl that thc acctclcnt occrrrrcrl in tlre vcar 2002, and as pet the ;\tncnrln-rcnt clated 09.01.2010, tl-re deceased is entitled for t1-re rnaxintu.r'r salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. In this case, or.vner of the vehicle rvas examined as RW1, who stated that hc paid Rs.5,000/- p.rn. as sa1ary and Rs.50/- as batta.^'i'hc Assistant Corurrissioner considered the salarv oi tl-rc deceascd, as pel the n'rinimuun wages, fixcd tl-rc rvagcs oi thc workman(dcceascd) at 1ts.2,604/- p.m., ancl hencc, tt nccds no intcrfercncc b-v tl-us Coutt. Iloth the l)oirlts lre ansrvercd accordinglr'.

¶73

¶74

ll. L-r rhe rcsult, thc orclcr clatccl 31.1U.2003 passed^rrl

¶75

V'.(1.No.225 of 2002 bv tl-re Assistant^{Commissi<>ner} oi J.abor-rr, Nizamabad, rn ali the respccts is confirmed^and the claimants 2lre entitled to 12Yo interest on^the corrpensati()rr^,.lrroullt from thc date o I acciclent ti11 the dirtc clcPosit oi tirc :rntount.

¶76

,\ccorclinglr,, C.\1.,.No.1203 of 200'l tllcd bt Lrsurancc Cornpanf is dismtsscd and C.\I.r'.No.1068 of 2()04 filcd bv drc claimants is allorvecl in part. No costs.

¶77

{isccllancous pctition-s, if anr', pcndinu shall sttrncl

¶78

clo s cd.

¶79

IITRUE COPYII

¶80

Sdi.B,S. CH IRANJ EEVI JOINT REG STRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶81

¶82

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

¶83

¶84

One CC to Sri K.M.Mahender Reddy. Advocate (OPUC) 3. One CC to Sri E.Venugopat Reddy, Advocate (OPUC)^' 4. Two CD Copies

¶85

One Spare Copy KJ

¶86

HIGH COURT

¶87

DATED:08/03/2022

¶88

<br>/'k\ //fffi'\ 1r<br>lg h?i Zir??
q
/

¶89

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶90

CMA.Nos.1068 of^{2004and 1203 of 2011}

¶91

DISMISSING THE^{CMANO.12O3OF 2011AND} PARTLY ALLOWED^{THE CMA NO.'I068 OF 2OO4}

¶92

/r-\ ..J
, \r )2

Aaldhi Gangaram and Anr. v. Sri Chinna Ganga Ram and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aaldhi Gangaram and Anr. v. Sri Chinna Ganga Ram and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bajaji Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Valavoju Yellamma and 5 Others

Palamakula Mohd. Sadaq, Vs Smt. Razia Sulthana

The National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Shri Mohd Baba and Anr.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Ramavath Balu

M/s.New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Mr.Ramavath Keshya

Mr.Hardeep Singh Vs Smt.Harleem Kaur Bajwa and Anr.