Partly allowed

Mohammad Maqbool v. M. Ramesh Chary and Another

Telangana HC23 Mar 2022CMA/181/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

That claimant, a driver injured in an accident, appealed the Commissioner 's award on grounds of low wage basis and disability percentage. The court enhanced the disability rate and awarded interest from the accident date, directing the insurer to deposit the balance.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; compensation recalculated based on 35 % disability; interest awarded from accident date; insurer directed to deposit balance within one month.

Mohammad Maqbool Vs M. Ramesh Chary and Another — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

II i t t

I l f i

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶5

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY^{THIRDDAYOF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY TWO}

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA}

¶8

CIVIL MISCE^{LLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 181 OF 2010}

¶9

Appeal filed under^{section 30 of workmen's compensation Act against the} order dated^{o9-11-2009madein w.c.No.355 0f 2003 0n the file of the} commissioner for^{workmen's compensationand Deputy commissionerof} Labour , Nizamabad.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Mohammad Maqbool,^{S/o. Liyakath Ali, aged 41 years, occ:Ex-DriverRl/o.} Bodhan, Nizamabad District.

¶12

...APPELLANT/C LAIMANT

¶13

AND

¶14

M. Ramesh Chary,^{S/o. Yadagiri CharyOcc: LorryOwner,Fl/o' Bodhan} Nizamabad District.AP.

¶15

New lndia Assurance^{company Limited, Represented by Divisional Manager} Subash Nagar, Nizamabad^District.AP"

¶16

,..RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶17

Counsel for the Appellant^{:SRl.K'M'MAHENDER REDDY}

¶18

Counsel for Respondent^{No. 1: None appeared}

¶19

Counsel for Respondent^{No.2: SMT. SATYAMANJULA}

¶20

The Court /ap'e7,Jttre^{following: JUDGMENT}

¶21

---------7

¶22

HON'BLE JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

¶23

CrvIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 181 OF 2O1O

¶24

JUDGMENT:

¶25

Challenging the order dated 09.11.2OO9 passed in W.C. Case No.355 of 2OO3 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 claimarrt-appellant.

¶26

It is the case of the claimant/appeilant that he was employed by the l"t respondent as a driver on the lorry bearing No.ADT-7449 on a monthly salary of Rs.6,000/- and batta Rs. 1OO/- per day. On 14.O2.2003 at 2.30^p.m., while he was going from Bodhan to Bichkunda with load of rice in the said lorry, he met with an accident and received multiple and grievous fracture injuries all over his body. Immediately, he was shifted to Nizamabad Hospital and thereafter, he^was referred to Hyderabad lor further treatment. He incurred an amount of Rs.2,O0,0OO/- torrvards treatment.^Therefore, he claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,0O0/^.

¶27

2 PSS,J CMA No.18l of^2O10

¶28

After adducing evidence and marking exhibits, the Deputy Commissioner granted EIn arnount of Rs.59,051/towards compensation together with interest @ 12o/o per annum from the date of notice till the date of realisation. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant/appellant preferred this Appeal.

¶29

Heard the arguments of both the learned counsel.

¶30

A perusal of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour shoq,s that the claimant was a driver with a salary of Rs.6,0OO/- per month as on the date of accident i.e., 14.O2.2OO3. In the counter liled by the 1"t respondent-owner o[ the vehicle, he admitted the employment of the appellant/claimant and stated that he was^paying Rs.4,0O0/- per month and Rs.20/- per day as Batta. The Deputy Commissioner has taken minimum wages @ Rs.3,353/per month for calculation purpose. Further, the appellantclaimant examined PW2 Doctor, who assessed the functional disability C4. 35% and accordingly, issued Ex.AlO-disability certificate. But, the Deputy Commissioner has taken the disability as 25"1, instead ol 35o/"

¶31

PSS,J CMA No.l8l of 2010

¶32

The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the Deputy Commissioner erred in taking the minimum wages instead of taking the wages as Rs.4,50O/_ per month as claimed by the appellant/claimant. He further contended that on considering the nature of injuries sustained, the Deput5r Commissioner ought to have taken the disability of the appellant @ 35% instead of 2\o/o. He further contended that interest @l2o/o p.a. was not granted from the date of accident till date of realization.

¶33

Learned counsel for the )a<t respondent_lnsurance Company contended that the Deputy Commissioner has rightly awarded compensation and thus, it needs no interference.

¶34

B. The owner of the vehicle was not examined. The Depuer Commissioner rightly considered the minimum wages as Rs.3,353/- and it needs no interference.

¶35

Considering the age and the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant-claimant and the disability assessed by the doctor, the Deputy Commissioner has w,rongly taken into consideration the disability of the appell ant (i; 25ok instead of 35o/o lor calculating the compensation and awarded a sum of Rs.59,051/- towards compensation along with interesr (a)l2Zo

¶36

¶37

PSS,J CMA No.18l of 20 lO

¶38

p.a. from the date of notice till the actual date of realisation. However, the appellant-claimant is entitled for interest @ l2o/o per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in SABERABIBI YAKWBHAI SHAIKH V. NATIONAL IJ\ISUR/UVCE COM9AI{r.

¶39

As the Insurance Company already deposited the amount, claimant is entitled for interest from the date of accident till the date of deposit.

¶40

In view of above differences in the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the compensation has to be calculated as under:

¶41

6011OOxRs.3353xt 17.41x35/ tOO : Rs.82,62I/-

¶42

Accordingly, the Civit Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. The 2.a respondent-lnsurance 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 applicant/appellant is entitled to withdraw the same. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

rzotr 121^scczos

¶44

PSS,J CMA No.18t of2OlO

¶45

¶46

¶47

t? As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if anv,

¶48

shall stand closed.

¶49

SD/.B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTI FICER

The Commissioner for-Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour , l,,llzamLoao ifriii .e"o.osy

¶55

One CC to SRt. K.M{/AHENDER REDDy,Advocate [OpUC]

¶56

One CC to SMT. SAryA MANJULA/Advocale [opUC]

¶57

4 . Two CD Copies 5. One Spare Copy

CDL

4 MMA fr'

HIGH COURT

DATED:2310312022

JUDGMENT

CMA.No.181 of 2010

6L STa I
,)'
1 4 JUt 2022 Z
o

.? <br> Dann^rat',r--O

¶65

PARTY ALLOWING THE CMA.

¶66

9i",'t5t
^
,@

Mohammad Maqbool v. M. Ramesh Chary and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Maqbool v. M. Ramesh Chary 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

Mr.Alluri Prem Kumar Vs Mr.Alluri Prabhakar

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Panganti Vijaya

National Insurance Company Limited Vs K. Maruthi , Babu

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Vadde Ram Reddy and Another

M.Bhoomaiah Vs M.Ramesh Chary and Anr.

Pitla Sailu Vs Shaik Abdul Rahman and Anr.