Allowed

The Branch Manager, Uiico. Ltd. Nizamabad v. Roop Singh and Another

Telangana HC21 Mar 2022CMA/2507/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by United India Insurance Company, granting it liberty to recover the deposited compensation from the vehicle owner, while also allowing the applicant's cross-objections regarding interest.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal allowed granting liberty to appellant to recover compensation deposited from vehicle owner; cross objections allowed to extent of interest.

The Branch Manager, Uiico. Ltd. Nizamabad Vs Roop Singh… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²⁰⁸ ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶6

C.M.A. NO: 2507 OF 2004

¶7

AND

¶8

CROSS OBJECTIONS⁽ SR) NO: 61558 OF 2004

¶9

Appeal under Section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act, and Cross Objections under Order 41 Rule 22 ol CPC against the Order in W.C.No.114 o'f 2OO2 dated 3110512003 on the file of the Commissioner for the Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad.

¶10

Between:

¶11

The Branch Manager, United lndia lnsurance Co. ltd. Nizamabad.

¶12

...APPELLANT/OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2

¶13

AND

¶14

'1 . Roop Singh, S/o Zora Singh Rl/o.Kalajhar Pavanigad, District Sangroor, Punjab, presently Rl/o.at Kondoor Village, Sirikonda Mandal Nizamabad District.

¶15

Aala Bhoomaiah, S/o Gangaram Business Fi/o Kondoor village Sirikonda mandal Nizamabad District.

¶16

(Appeal against R2 dismissed for default vide court order dated 1511212015) ...RESPONDENTS/ APPLICANT / OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1

¶17

For the Appellant : SRI E.VENUGOPAL REDDY, Advocate

¶18

Forthe Respondent No.1 : SRI V.SATYAM REODY, Advocate

¶19

For the Respondent No.2 :

¶20

The Court delivered the following : JUDGMENT

¶21

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

¶22

qvlL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.25O7 OF 2OO4 elld Cross-Obiections (SRI No. 6l.558 of 2OO4

¶23

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶24

Challenging the order dated 31.05.2003 passed in W.C. No.1 14 of 2OO2 by the Commissioner for Workmen,s Compensation and Assistant Cornmissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Ljnited India Assurance Company Limited, Nizamabad.

¶25

The facts of the case are that the respondent-applicant was working as a cleaner on the Crop Harvester Machine bearing No.PB O4G 5339 belonging to Aala Bhoomaiah i.e., lst respondent. On 13.04.2001, on the instructions of 1st respondent, while the applicant was proceeding towards Talla Ramadugu Village, to perform agricultural harvesting work, the driver of the said Harvester Machine, drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and came in contact with high tension electric wire at Alugu of Regupally Tank, due to which, he received electric shock with burning injuries to his left hand, left thigh, left armpit, right palm and to left foot heel. Thereafter, he was shifted to a private Hospital at Nizamabad for treatment. Due ro the said incident, the applicant

¶26

) PSS,J^. CMA No.2507^{of 2004}

¶27

has beconre perrnanent and partially disabled^{and lost his eaming} i capacity. Flence, he sought Rs.3,O0,0OO/- towards compensation.^The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, had awarded compensation of Rs.2,37,546 l- to the applicant. Aggrieved by the said order, United India Assurance Company Limited, Nizamabad preferred this Appeal.

¶28

Heard arguments of learned counsel for the ! appeilant/opposite party and learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ applicants. I jH

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there'is { no insurance coverage for cleaner on the Crop^Harvesting i Machine bearing No. PB-04G-5339. The insurance company has not collected any premium and there is no employee and ri i! employer relationship between the owner, of the vehicle and the applicant and thus, risk of the clealer was not covered under Ex.B 1 policy. Learned counsel further contended that^the Commissioner erred in fixing the liability @ IOO%, when^the injury suffered by the applicant was as^per schedule-I iof Workmens' Compensation Act. Learned counsel for the appellant disputed the income of the applicant.

¶30

PSS,J CMA No.25O7 of 2004

¶31

The respondent-applicant has filed cross_objections seeking to gr.rnt interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident tiil the date of realization. Since the commissioner has rightly assessed the disability suffered by the applicant and also taken into consideration the wages at Rs.5,O00/_ per month, the order impugned needs no interference by this Court.

¶32

A perusal of the record shows that applicant was working as cleaner on Crop Harvesting Machine and he met with an accident on 13.04.200 1 as the driver of the said vehicle had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and came in contact with high tension electric wire, due to which, the applicant has sustained multiple injuries.

¶33

7 . Before the Court below, the owner of the vehicle l"t respondent herein filed counter-aflid.vit wherein he admitted that applicant was working as cleaner and he is having valid insurance policy. But, no salary certificate was filed.

¶34

Before the Court below, owner of the vehicle was not examined by the applicant. In the cross examination, it was suggested to him that he was paid Rs. 120O/_ per month, but he denied the same. Further, the Commissioner has taken his monthly sa1ary at Rs. 1B0O/- per month as per the Minimum

¶35

¶36

PSS'J 4 CMA No.2507^{of 2004}

¶37

Wages Act. The applicant lvas examined^{by Orthopaedic} Surgeon, who was examined as PW2.^{PW2 in his evidence} stated that the applicant sustained amputation^{below elbowleft} upper limb, secondary to electrocution and left^knee movements and also restricted due to deep bums and sustained 7 Soh permanent partial disability and issued under Ex.A9 disability certificate and he assessed the loss of^earning capacity of the applicant as 1OO%o.

¶38

¶39

Learned counsel for Insurance Company stated that Commissioner erred in fixing 100% of disability though^Doctor I assessed the disability as 75k.

¶40

Admittedly, the applicant was^cleaner and^{he sustained} amputation and he cannot discharge his duties^{as cleaner or as}

¶41

labour and thus, Commissioner has rightly taken the^lossof earning capacity as 100'7o for the^{purpose of} calculation^{and it} ., 11 requires no interference.

¶42

The Insurance Company mainly contended that^no l premium was paid by the owner and the risk of the^cleanerwas not covered under Ex.Bl policy. Crop Harvesting^Machinelis having only one seat meant lor driver, as such^{the Insurance} Company is not liable to^pay any^{compensation.}

¶43

¶44

l PSS,J CMA No.25O7 of 2004

¶45

I \

¶46

The oll'ner of the vehicle^was not^{entered into witnessbox} and he never stated that he^{paid an rrdditionalpremium. The} owner failed to pay the^{premiumfor cleaner.Since there is no} ,l provision at all on the Crop^{Harvesting Machineto sit another} person except driver, the owner of^{the vehicle, who permitted} the cleaner on the Crop^{Harvesting Machine, is liable to pay the} compensation. Since the insurance^{company has already} deposited arnount at the time^{of preferring the appeal, theyare} at liberty to recover the^same from^{the owner of the vehicle by} way of execution proceedings.

¶47

As per decision of the Supreme^{Court inS.ABER,,jBIBI} YAKUBBHAI SHAIKII V. NATIONAL^{IMURAJVCECOMPANY} '^applicant is r entitled to interest @) 12%^{per annum from the date of} accident to till the date^{of payment.}

¶48

In this case insurance^{company has already deposited the} I amount, applicant is entitled to^{the interest from the date of} accident till the date of deposit.^{The applicantis at libertyto} recover the same from the^{owner of the vehicle.}

¶49

In the result, the Civil^{MiscellaneousAppeal is allowed} granting liberty to the appellant-insurance^{company to recover} compensation deposited by them^{from the owner of the vehicle}

¶50

'^{zot+ (z) scc:gs}

¶51

¶52

PSS,J CMA No.2507 of 2004

¶53

and also the cross objections filed by the applicant is also

¶54

allou,ed to the extent of interest.

¶55