Allowed

New India Assurance Company v. Mr. Chinna Narasimha and Anr.

Telangana HC10 Mar 2022CMA/1110/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by an insurance company to challenge a penalty-less compensation award of Rs.2.49 lakhs with victim in a workmen compensation case arising from a road accident injury the High Court found no merit in the challenge regarding the quantum of compensation but allowed interest on the amount as per apex court ruling.

What did the court decide?

Interest @ 12% p.a. from date of accident till date of deposit; compensation amount retained unchanged.

New India Assurance Company Vs Mr. Chinna… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P,SREE SUDHA

¶5

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1110 OF 2012

¶6

Appeal Under Section 30 of Workman's Compensation Act against the order in W.C.No.139 of 2005 dated 06-10-2006 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour-l, T. Anjaiah Karmika Sankshema Bhavan at Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY, rep., by its Regional Manager,^Surya Towers, S.P.Road Secunderabad.

¶9

...APPELLANT/ 2nd Respondent

¶10

AND

¶11

'1 . MR. CHINNA NARASIMHA S/o.Prasad, aged about 29 years, Occ: Lorry Cteaner R/o. H. No.2-4-297, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad.

¶12

,..RESPONDENT/ Applicant

¶13

Mr. Vadde Nandi Obulesu, S/o.Mr. V.Peddanna R/o.Near Shantiketan^English Medium School, Sanjeeva Nagar, Nandyal, Kurnool District.

¶14

..,RESPONDENT/ 1"t Respondent

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: SMT. P SATYA MANJULA

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI KASI REDDY JAGATHPAL^REDDY

¶17

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶18

HON'BLE SMTJUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶19

C.M.A.No.1110 of 2012

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Challenging the order dated 06.10.2005 passed in V.CNo.139 of 2005 by the Commissioner for .Workmen,s C-ompensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour_I, Hlderabad, rhe present appeal is filed by the appellant_ Insurance Company.

¶22

The brief facm of the case are that, the i.,, respondent-claimant was employed by the 2,d respondenr as a Cleaner on rhe lorry bearing No.AP 2lTJ 5)ll on payment of wages @ Rs.4,OOO/- per monrh. On 26.09.2005, he was proceeding on the said lorry, and when reached near Aroor Village, Zaheerabad bus stand, the driver of another lorry, which was proceeding in the same direction in front of the L" respondent's lorr;,, applied sudden brakes, due to which, the 1" respondent's lorry dashed to the said lon1r, as a result of which, the 1." respondent sustained grievous fracture

¶23

¶24

injuries to both bones of^{left leg. Immediately,he was shifted} to Hospital for treatment.^{F{ence,the 1" respondent sought} compensation of Rs.4,00,000/^-.

¶25

:. After considering the^{oral and documentaryevidence} and on hearing^{leamed counselappearingfor both} Parties, the fusistant C-ommissioner^{granted an amountof} Rs.2,49,006 /-to^{wardscompersation.Challengingthe same,} the appellant-Insurance^{companyhas preferredthis appeal'}

¶26

Leamed counsel^{appearing for the appellant-Insurance} Company contended^{that though the doctorassessedthe} disability of the 1"^{respondent as 60 %, the fusistant} Commissioner erred^{in considering the loss of eaming} capacity of the 1"^{respondentas 80o/o. Learned counsel} further contended that^{the compensation awarded by the} fusistant C-ommissioner^{ii excessive and exortitant'}

¶27

A perusal of the^{impugned ordershows that on behalf} of the 1" respondent,^{Professor and Head,Depanment of}

¶28

¶29

I I

¶30

Onhopaedics, Mediciti Institute of Medical Sciences, was examined as A-V.2. FIe examined the 1', respondent and issued the disabiliry certificate under Ex.A5 wherein he assessed the disabilityof the 1,, respondent as 6Oo/o,which is panial and permanent in narure. He stated that the 1.,, respondent cannot work as cleaner by squatting on the floor, he cannot stand for long time and walk a long distance and that he is walking with crutches. FIe has not stated anfhing about the loss of eaming capaciryin his evidence.

¶31

As can be seen from the record, the 1,, respondent was working as a cleaner on heavy goods vehicle, which is strenuous. \X/ith the above disability, the 1,, respondenr cannor do his duties as he used to do earlier. The 1., respondent was aged about 27 years ar the time of accident and he sustained disabiJiry and he is walking with crutches. Considering rhe same, and taking into considerarion the medical evidence, the Assistant Commissioner has assessed the eaming capaciry of the 1', respondent x g0o/o and

granted an amount of fu.2,49,006/- towards compensarion

¶36

and thus, it needs no interference bythis Court.

¶37

However, the L"- respondent N entitled to L2^o/o

¶38

interest from the date of accident till the date of deposit as per the decision of the Apex Court tn Saberabibi Yakabbhai Shaikh u. National In^.lrdnce Corupanlt. 8 Accordingly, the Gvil Miscellaneous Appeal is

¶39

djsmissed. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to

¶40

deposit interest @ l2o/o p.a. within a period of one month from the date of this order. On such deposit, the 1" respondent is permitted to withdraw balance amount along

¶41

with interest.

¶42

Miscelianeous petitions, I any, pending shall stand

¶43

closed.

¶44

'2014(21 scc²⁹⁸

¶45

SD/. B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGlSTRAR /.tt t //TRUE COPY// ,t]1+f SECTId( 6FFICER

¶46

To,

¶47

The Commissioner for^{Workmen's Compensation &Assistant} Cohmiiiionei ot t-aUour-t,^{T. Anjaiah KarmikaSankshema Bhavan,RTC} Cross Road, Hyderabad^{(With record)}

¶48

One CC to Smt. P SATYA^{MANJULAAdvocate} IOPUC]

¶49

3 one CC to SRl. KASI REDDY JAGATHPAL^{REDDY Advocate} [OPUC]

¶50

Two CD copies

¶51

one spare copy

HIGH COURT

DATED:1010312022

JUDGMENT

1 df- SIA ,t:
( or r)
3 )+ 13 JUL 2022
,i.
4+
, /-)€.spA-itnE9

¶58

CMA.No.1110 of 2012

¶59

DISMISSING THE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL

¶60

New India Assurance Company v. Mr. Chinna Narasimha and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

New India Assurance Company v. Mr. Chinna Narasimha and Anr.

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

Karne Linganna Vs G.Ganga Reddy

Samala Laxminarayana, Karimnagar and 7 Ors. Vs Gundeti Rajeswari, Khammam.

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

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Jada Muthyali and 4 Ors.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mohd Saber Hussain and Anr.

V.Rambabu Naidu Vs Talluri Jailaxmi Rao