Partly allowed

Bandari Srinivas v. M.Vasuder and 2 Ors.

Telangana HC17 Mar 2022CMA/229/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Hyderabad, allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal partially regarding workmen's compensation. It modified the calculation base from minimum wages to actual wages, adjusted disability from 50% to 65%, and directed payment of interest from the accident date.

What did the court decide?

Compensation calculated as Rs. 3,45,337/- and 2nd respondent directed to deposit balance with interest from accident date within one month.

Bandari Srinivas Vs M.Vasuder and 2 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶5

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 229 OF 2010

¶6

Appeal Under Section 30 of workmen's Compensation Act order in W.C.No.346 of 2003 Daled124l11l2O09 on the file of the Commissioner for workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner fo Labour, Nizamabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Bandari Srinivas, S/o.Gangaram, aged 40 years, Occ:Ex-Labour, R/o.(Vill)(m),Konasamudram , Kamarpalli , Nizamabad -AP

¶9

...APPELLANT/CLAIMANT

¶10

¶11

'l . M.Vasuder S/o tV'luthaiah, lvlajor,Occ: Tractor Trailer Owner, Rl/o.(Vill) Konasamudram Village(M) Bheemgal, Nizamabad -AP.

¶12

National Assurance Co. Ltd, Rep by Div. Manager, Jawahar Road, Nizamabad- AP.

¶13

Telli Chinnaiah S/o Gangaram, Major ,Tractor Owner R/o Konasamudram (m) Kamarpalli , Nizamabad -AP.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant:SRl. K M MAHENDER REDDY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

HOIIBLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SRE)I SUl)l:IA

¶19

( ML MISCDLLANEOUS APPEAL No.229 ()F 2O1r)

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

Challenging the order dated 24.11.2009 passed in W.C. case No.346 rf 2OO3 by the Commissioner f,rr W'orkmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, s,:eking enhancement of the compensation, this Civil Miscellan:ous Appeal is hled by the clarmanl.-appellant.

¶22

It is tht case of the claimant/appellant t hal he was employed by the 1"t respondent as a labourer on a monthly salary of Rs.!,,00O/- and batta of Rs.SO/- pe: da'y on the Tractor bearirg No.AP-25D-9652 and Trailer b:zrring No.AP25D-9653.^{()n27.11.2OO2} as there was nrechen ca. problem to his tractor he took ttre help of another Tr zrt:tor bearing No.AP-25-F-7244 of the respondent No.3 and at:,a:ht:d Trailer bearing No.AP.25D-9653 and on the way met witlr ,rn accident, due to which. all the labourers sustained inju r:es and one arnong them <lied. The claimant/appellant rect:..r'ed multiple and grievous f^'actrrre injuries all over his bodl-. Imnrediately, he was admitt ed in Dr. L. Ramulu Hospital, Nii;:t:'nabad. The claimant/appe lant Iiled W.C. case No.346 of 2OCl] for grant of compensation rf Rs.4,OO,OOO/-.

¶23

¶24

Z PSS,J CMA No.229 of 2OlO

¶25

After adducing evidence and marking exhibits, the Deputy Commissioner granted an amount of Rs. 1,26,181,/towards compensation. Being not satisfied with the quarltum of compensation, the claimant/appellant preferred this Appeal.

¶26

Heard arguments of both the learned counsel.

¶27

A perusal of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour shows that, claimant was a cleaner with a salary of Rs.S,OOO/- per month and batta Rs.SO/- per day as on the date of accident i.e., 27.11.2OO2. In the counter filed by the 1"t respondent-owner of the vehicle, he admitted the employment of the appellant/claimant and stated that he was paying Rs.4,O00/- per month and Rs. 1O/- per day as Batta. The salary certilicate was marked as Ex.AlO. The Deputy Commissioner has taken minimum wages @ Rs. 1,900/- per month for calculation purpose. In the discussion, it is stated that in the nearby Maldals i.e. Morthad, Kammarpalli, Velpur which fall under Zone-I, the minimum wages of Rs.2,392/- per month was taken, but Bheemgal Mandal falls under Zone-llrl, as such, the minimum wages of Rs.1,9OO/- is taken for the purpose of calculation. Thus, the Deputy Commissioner has considered the wages as per the Minimum Wages Act. Further,

¶28

,.1 PSS,J C \1.\ No.229 of 2010

¶29

the appellant claimant examined PW2-Do<:tor, rvho assessed the disability (, 65% and accordingly, issued Ex A 1 I -disability certiflcate. But, the Deputy Commissioner has tzLl<en disability as SOYo insteac of 650/o.

¶30

The lea'ned counsel for the appellanrt/claimant contended that the Deputy Commissioner erred n taking the minimum wage; instead of taking the wages as Rs..1i,000/- per month as clair ned by the appellant/claimant. lle further contended that rn considering the nature of injurie si sustained, the Deputy Commissioner ought to have taker-r the ,lisability of the appellant @ lOO% instead of 5O%. He further ,rorrtended that interest @ 2% p.a. was not granted from ,h e <late of accident till date of realization.

¶31

Learned c runsel for the 2"d respondenr.lnsttrance Company conten<led that the Deputy Commissioner hrrs rightly awarded compensation and thus, it needs no interferet-Lce

¶32

B. The owner o'the vehicle i.e. l"t respondent u,as r,xarnined as RW. 1 and he sl atecl that he was paying salary of tls.4,OoO/per month and Batta of Rs. 1O/- per day to the appellant/claiman and issued Ex.AlO salar5z certifi<.ate. The Deputy Commissioner erred in not considering the sa:-ne, and

¶33

¶34

4 CMA No.229 of20l0 ""\

¶35

has wrongly taken the minimum wages as Rs. 1,9O0/-. Thus, the wages of the applic ant/ appellant has to be rnodified^as Rs.4,000/- per month.

¶36

Considering the age and nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant-claimant and the disability assessed by the doctor, the Deputy Commissioner has wrongly taken into consideration the disability of the appellant (D 50% instead of 650/o for calculating the compensation and awarded a sum of Rs.1,26,181/- towards compensation along with interest @12% p.a. from one month after the date of accident. However, the appellant-claimant is entitled to interest @ l2o/o per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization in view of the decision of the Supreme Court 1n SABERABIBI YAKUBBHAI SH/.IKII V. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANYI .

¶37

In view of above differences in the order of the Deput5r Commissioner, the compensation has to be calculated as under:

¶38

60 / 1 OOxRs.4 OOOx22 1.37 x65/ 1 O0 = Rs. 3,45,337 / -

¶39

1 I . Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. The 2"d respondent-lnsurance Company is directed to deposit the balance amount with interest accrued thereon within a period of one I zor+ 1zy scc zss

¶40

./'

¶41

5 PSS,J CI'41 No 229 of 2O 10

¶42

month from t re date of the order, and on such deposit, the applicant/appe lant is entitled to withdraw the samr:. There shall

¶43

be no order as I c costs.

¶44

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applic,rtions, if any, shall stand clo sed.

¶45

//TRUE COPY//

¶46

SD/- B.S.CHIRANJEEVI .IOINT REGISTRAR {y,

¶47

SECTICJN OFFICER

¶48

To,

¶49

The commisior er for workmen's ciompensation and Deprty commissioner of Labour, Nizam; bad (with records).

¶50

One CC to SR . K. M .MAHENDER REDDY, Advocate [CprJC].

¶51

Two CD Copies.

¶52

One Spare Cop y.

HIGH COURI'

PSS, J

DATED:1 7l0i;12022

ORDER

CMA.No.229 of 2010

ne SiA r{
(
t;
Co [ 4, r[B z$zJ az
.S
"t
\ Ct, ,,.

¶61

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CMA, WITHOU COSTS.

¶62

) {6A/

Bandari Srinivas v. M.Vasuder and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandari Srinivas v. M.Vasuder and 2 Ors.

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

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.

Ellowad Gyanobha Vs Md. Shafiuddin and Another

Chepoor Ravi, Nizamabad Vs Abdul Rasheed, Nizamabad and Ano