Partly allowed

M.Bhoomaiah v. M.Ramesh Chary and Anr.

Telangana HC23 Mar 2022CMA/183/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by an injured labour seeking enhancement of workmen's compensation. The High Court set aside the Deputy Commissioner's defective quantum calculation due to incorrect disability percentage and awarded further compensation with interest from the accident date per Saberabi Yakubhai Shaikh.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; compensation recalculated to Rs.2,00,783/- and Insurance Company directed to deposit the balance with interest within one month.

M.Bhoomaiah Vs M.Ramesh Chary and Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶6

clvlL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 183 OF 2010

¶7

Appeal filed Under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act against the Order dated 09-1 1-2009 made in W.C.No.358 of 2003 on the^file of^the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and^{Deputy Commissioner of} Labour , Nizamabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

I,4.Bhoomaiah, S/o.Ashaiah, aged 31^years, Occ: Ex.Labour^{RL/o.Malapally,} Nizamabad, A.P.

¶10

,..APPELLANT/CLAIMANT

¶11

AND

¶12

N/l.Ramesh Chary, S/o.Yadagiri Chary, Major, Lorry Owner R/o.Bodhan, Nizamabad, A.P.

¶13

New lndia AssuranQe Co Ltd, rep by Divisional Manager, Subash^Nagar, Nizamabad, A.P.

¶14

..,RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶15

Gounsel for the Appellant :Ms. K SARALA MAHENDER REDDY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : None appeared

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: SMT. P. SAryA MANJULA

¶18

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

H )N'BLE JUSTICE P. SREE SUDH.A.

¶20

CIVIL MI SCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.183 CrF 2O1O

¶21

JUDGMENT:

¶22

Challengrg the order dated O9.ll.2OO9 passed in W.C. Case No.358 rf 2003 by the Commissioner for Workmen,s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, se:king enhancement of the compensation, this Civil Miscellant ous Appeal is filed by the claimant-appellant.

¶23

It is the case of the claimant/appellant that he was employed by th -" l"t respondent as a labour on the lorry bearing No.ADT-7449 .ri a moflthly salary of Rs.5,000/- and batta Rs.20/- per da/. On 14.02.2003 at 2.BO p.m., while he was going from Bochan to Bichkunda with load of rice in the said lorry, he met with an accident and received :multiple and grievous fractu 'e injuries all over his body. Immediately, he was shifted to Nizamabad Hospital and thereafter, he was referred to Hyr erabad for further treatment. He incurred an amount of Rs.2,0O,0OO/- towards treatment. Therefore, he claimed compe, sation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

¶24

2 PSS,J CMA No.183 of 2010

¶25

After adducing evidence and marking exhibits, the Deputy Commissioner granted an amount of Rs.1,2O,469/towards compensation together with interest @ 12% per zrnnum from the date of notice till the date of realisation. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant/ appellant preferred this Appeal.

¶26

Heard the arguments of both the learned counsel.

¶27

A perusai of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour shows that the claimant was a labour with a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month as on the date of accident i.e., 14.O2.2OO3. In the counter filed by the l"t respondent-owner of the vehicle, he admitted the employment of the appellant/claimant and stated that he was paying Rs.3,500/- per month and Rs.1O/- per day as Batta. The Deputy Commissioner has taken minimum wages @ Rs.2,OS7 /- per month for calculation purpose. Further, the appellantclaimant exarnined PW2-Doctor, who assessed the functional disability @ 75% and accordingly, issued Ex.A1O-disability certificate. But, the Deputy Commissioner has taken the disability as 45yo instead of 75o/o.

¶28

PSS,J clvtA No. 183 0f 20 I O

¶29

The lea rned counsel for the appellant/ claimant contended tha: the Deputy Commissioner erred in taking the minimum wag(:s instead of taking the wages as Rs.5,000/- per month as cla med by the appellant/claimant. He further contended thar on considering the nature of injuries sustained, the Deputy Co nmissioner ought to have taken the disability of the appellant r) 75%o instead of 45oh. He further contended that interest ( Dl2o/o p.a. was not granted from. the date of accident till da e of realization.

¶30

Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company contr nded that the Deputy Commissioner has rightly awarded compr nsation and thus, it needs no interference.

¶31

B. The ovi,ne : of the vehicle was not examined. The Deputy Commissioner rightly considered the minimurn wages as Rs.2,057/- anc it needs no interference.

¶32

Consideri tg the age and the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant-claimant and the disability assessed by the doctor, the Deputy Commissioner has '"'" rongly taken into considerat on the disability of the appell ant @ 4Soh instead of 75%o for calcrrlating the compensation and awarded a sum of

¶33

4 PSS,J CMA No.183 of 2010

¶34

Rs.l,2O,469 l- towards compensation along with interest @1.2% p.a. from the date of notice tiil the actual date of realisation. However, the appellant-claimant is entitled for interest @ l2%o per allnum from the date of accident till the date of realization in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in SABERABIBI

¶35

YAKUBBHAI SHAIKH V, NATIONAI. INSURAIVCE COMPAMI .

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

60 / 1 00xRs. 2 O57 x2 16.9 lx7 5 I IOO^: Rs.2, 00,783 / -

¶39

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

¶40

'^zot+ 1z;^{scc zet}

¶41

PSS,J CI\IA No. 183 of 2010

¶42

¶43

L. 13. As a seq rel, pending miscellaneous applicrltions, if any,

¶44

shall stand clo red.

¶45

SD/.B.S.CHIRANJEEVI ,JOINI- REGISTRAR

/TRUE COPY//

ISECTION OFFICER

To,

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

¶50

One CC to Ms. K SARALA MAHENDER REDDY Advocate tOpUCl

¶51

One CC to Ms.^,. SATYA MANJULA Advocate IOPUCI

¶52

Two CD Copies

¶53

One Spare Cop^r

CDL *

MMA

HIGH COURT

DATED:2310311022

ORDER

CMA.No.183 cf²⁰¹⁰

1 STA,'t; Op
.<
t <br>oc) tB lu[ 2t22
I
ll
.. -. ,af

¶63

PARTY ALLC \/ED

¶64

trI
/r

M.Bhoomaiah v. M.Ramesh Chary and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Bhoomaiah v. M.Ramesh Chary 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

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

Mohammad Maqbool Vs M. Ramesh Chary and Another

Pitla Sailu Vs Shaik Abdul Rahman and Anr.