Partly allowed

Gopagani Bixam v. Bachalakuri Saidulu

Telangana HC15 Sept 2022CMA/273/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a civil miscellaneous appeal against a Workmen Compensation order. The appellants challenged the award and the payment of interest. The High Court held that the compensation amount was appropriate but directed payment of interest from the date of the accident, allowing the appeal partly.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was partly allowed to grant interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident (15.05.2010) instead of the adjudication date.

Gopagani Bixam Vs Bachalakuri Saidulu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH^{DAY OF SEPTENilBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

¶5

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 273 OF²⁰²²

¶6

Appeal Under Section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act against the^{Order dated} 04-03-2014 passed in W.C.No. 512011 on the file of the^{Commissioner of} Employee's Compensation and Assistant^{Commissioner of Labour at Nalgonda.}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gopagani Bixam, S/o Ramulu, aged 45^years, Occupation:^Cooli,

¶9

Gopagani Dhanamma, W/o Bixam, aged 40^years, Occupation:^{House hold,} Both are Rl/o Pamanagundla village of Kattangur^{Mandal of NalgodnaDistrict.}

¶10

...APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS

¶11

AND

¶12

'1 . Bachalakuri Saidulu, S/o Ramulu, aged major, Occupation: Private Job, Fl./o H. No. 2-47, Gattikal village of Athmakur^(S) Ivlandal^(Since died)^{his L.R.}

¶13

Smt. Bachalakuri Renuka, W/o Late Saidulu, aged 23^years, Occupation: House wife, and Tailoring. R/o C/o Pallerala^{Maisaiah,S/o Lalaiah, S.C.} Colony, Kodur village of Aravapally Mandal of Nalgonda^District.

¶14

Shriram General lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by^{its Legal} Manger, Branch office # 3-6-517, lVth Floor, Sai Datha Arcade,^{Flat Nos 403} to 410, 6th Street, Himayath nager, Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶16

Counsel for the Appellants : M/s. ANNAPURNA^SREERAM

¶17

Counsel forthe Respondent No.3 : Sri HARINATH REDDYSOMA

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

¶20

THE HON BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASI/A R1,':) NAIDU CIVIL M, SCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.273 I);.II 2022

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Aggriered by the order dated 04.O3.2014 in W.C.No.5 of 2011 the epplicants therein preferred this appeal with a prayer to et rhance the compensation and gr tnt lnterest from the⁽ .ate of accident. In the grourrd s of the appellants/a pplicants have claimed that the^()ourt. below failed to apl rreciate the evidence on record atrc feLiled to grant appropriate compensation along with ir tr.rest from the date of rpplication. According to the app icants they are entitled :o compensation along with interest fr,trn 11-r" date of accir lent and they have claimed that d ue to the accident the z lost their bread winner, thereby sought for enhancemen: of compensation and interest frcm ttre date of accident.

¶23

As cou .d tre seen from the petition averrnents and order of the Court below, it shows the applici,mts have claimed that the deceased was working as dr.v,:r on the vehicle owne I by l"t opposite party and or.r 13.1.r.2010 he

¶24

I 2

¶25

was on duty and drove the car frorn Nalgonda to Hyderabad. He has also averred in the application that on their way about 1;45 arn on l4.O4.2OlO, the driver of another vehicle ie., DCM van bearing No. Ap 2gU 8442 which is coming in the opposite direction drove the vehicle in high speed, in rash and negligent matter and dashed TATA Indica car which was driven by the deceased, resulting his death.

¶26

The applicants have claimed that the deceased was 2l years old and was drawing Rs.6,OOO/- per month apart from batta @ Rs.1O0/- per day and he used to contribute the same for his family. They filed the application claiming an arnount of Rs.6,0O,O0O/- along with interest @ l2%o per annum from the date of accident.

¶27

The 1"t opposite party i.e., owner of the party remained exparte. The 2.a opposite i.e., party insurance company from which the owner obtained policy contested the application, filed counter disputing the material averments including the employment of the deceased, his wages, batta etc.

¶28

¶29

During enquiry l"t applicant was examirLed as AWl and marked Ex.A1 to A7. None were examined :r-r behaif ol contesting rr spondent. But a copy of insurancr. policy ,"vas marked as E<.81.

¶30

Learne,I Commissioner has considered the evidence of both oral and documenta4r, allowed the application directing bo h the respondents/opposite pa_rlies to pay compensatio:r of Rs.6,26 ,394 l- with interest @ 12 9to from 15.0.2010.

¶31

Learne< [ counsel for the appellant placed reliance on judgment in Saberabibi Yakubbhai Shaikh anrl others v. National Ia surance Company Limited arrd others reported in (:10 14) 2 Supreme Court Cases 29g wherein it was held as t nder :

¶32

"Tort -aw-Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923-Sr;.4-A and 3-Payment of interest-)ate from vr hich to be reckoned-From datr: of acciden:-Deceased driver 36 yrs of age drivrng a truck awarded compensation on accourrt of death:n sum of Rs.2,13,570 vyith 12tyo interest as also Rs. 1,06,785 as penrtltyApplyin 1 Siby George, (2ot2l 12 SCC .;4O, held, Hi3h Court erred in directing responrlent

¶33

¶34

¶35

Insurance Company to pay interest from date of adjudication of claim application and not from date of accident, wrongly relying upon per incuriam decision in Satnam Singh, (2Olll 14 SCC 7SB - Thus, held, appellants are entitled to l2o/o interest from date of accident,,. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant also placing

¶36

reliance on judgment in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Siby George and others reported in (2012) t2 Supreme Court Cases 1240 wherein it was held as under :

¶37

A. Tort Law-Workmen,s Compensation Act, 1923_Ss.4_ A(1) & (3) and S.3-payment of compensation and interest thereon_Relevant date_He1d, employer,s liability to pay compensation arises on date injury is caused to workman by accident which has arisen out of and in course of employment_lnterest thereon becomes due when there is default in payment of compensation_Reasons for defauit are immaterial_ Where there is delay without justification, employer is also liable to pay penalty after grving him opportunity to show cause_Major vehicles Act, 19Bg_ Ss. 168 and 166-Compensation/Damages.

¶38

B. Constitution of Inciia_Art. 141_per incuriam decision_ What is-Decision rendered per incuriam, ald such decision has no precedential value_Held, decisions in

<br>

Mubc sir Ahmed, (2OO7l 2 SCC 349 anrl Mohd.Nasir, (200! ) 6 SCC 280 insofar as they tak: a contrarl view to the prior larger Bench decisions rrt Pratap Narian Singh Deo, (19761 | SCC 289 ar,d Vo,lsala K., (1999) 8 SCC 254 do not express the correct view and do nct make binding precedents.

¶43

9 Now t he point for consideration is :

¶44

Wheti er tle appellants dre entitled to more compttnsation along with interest from the date of accidtnt?

¶45

POIN',t:

¶46

As c ould be seen from the awer.cl, learned Commissiorrer having considered all the aver rnents made in the appli:ation and evidence of AWl came to conclusion that the ap tellants are entitled to Rs.6,28, l4(,./-, rvhich in my opinion is an appropriate compensation th:reb), it need not be inter ference. However, the appellants a-e entitled to claim intere st from the date of accident. I.o thi:t extent. the appeal can )e allowed.

¶47

¶48

l I

¶49

11, In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, granting compensation along with interest @ l2o/o per annum instead of i5.05.2010 as observed by the Court below.

¶50

With these modifications, the appeal is disposed of.

¶51

As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶52

Sd/. C.V. MALLIKARJUNA VARMA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE cOPY/l a-AIj SECTION OFFICER

¶53

To,

¶54

The Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour at Nalgonda.(with records, if any)

¶55

One CC to Smt. ANNAPURNA SREERAM, Advocate [OPUC]

¶56

One CC to Sri HARINATH REDDY SOMA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶57

Two CD Copies.

Njb

kam

HIGH COURT

SSRN,J

DATED:1510912022

ORDER

1r{E slA 16-
>
)
) il g FIB 2823
a
\ .*
s-.<br>

¶65

CMA.No.27i oI2O22

¶66

DISPOSING O]I THE CIVI MISCELLANEOUS API,IIAL
G
/>

Gopagani Bixam v. Bachalakuri Saidulu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopagani Bixam v. Bachalakuri Saidulu

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

Kosgi Nammula Kanki Reddy and 38 Others Vs The Deputy Commissioner and 4 Others

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Vemula Krishna , Krishnaiah and Another

National Insurance Company Limited, Khammam. Vs Vutukuru Rama Devi and 4 Others

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Neelakantam Shekar and Anr.

Hdfc Ergo General Inusurance Company Ltd., Vs K.Naresh and Another

M/S. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Gopagani Bixam and 2 Others