Appeal against workmen's compensation award where deceased driver died in vehicle accident. Court upheld respondent's right to compensation and dismissed insurer's appeal.
The Special Leave Petition (CMA No.394 of 2022) is dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[32s8 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
C.M.A. NO: 354 OF 2022
Appeal under Section 30 of W.C.Act, against the JudgmenV decree in w.c.No.210 of 2014 daled 2010612015 on the.file of the court of the commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labur-ll (FAC), TAKS Bhavan, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad.
Between:
Shriram General lnsurance Company Ltd., rep. by its Manager-Legal, T.p.Claims Hub, lV Floor, Saidatta Arcade, Himayathnagar; Hyderabad.
...APPELLANT/OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2
AND
(All are presently residing at Boduppal, Secunderabad)
...RESPONDENTS/ APPLICANTS
...... RespondenU Oppositeparty No.1
CMAMP. NO: 1830 OF 2015
Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dt.20.06-2015 in WC 210 of 2014 on the file of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-ll, Hyderabad including disbursement or withdrawal of amount deposited pending the disposal of the CMA.
For the Appellant : SRI K.AJAY KUMAR, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : SRI SUDARSHAN REDDY S., Advocate
For the Respondent No.3 : SRI G.PRASANNA ANJANEYULU, Advocate
The Court delivered the following : JUDGMENT
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
C.M.A.No.394 of 2O22
JUDGMENT
The appellant herein is second opposite party in W.C.No.210 of 20L4 on the fire of commissioner for Emproyees compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour_Il, Hyderabad. The above said workman's compensation case was decided on 20_06_2015. The learned Commissioner allowed the claim of applicants who are shown as respondents No.1 to 3 herein by directing the present appellant and first opposite party, who is shown as respondent No.4 to pay Rs.7,71,807/- with interest @ l2o/o per annum on the compensation amount frcm 2l-tt-2014 till the amount is realized.
The learned Commissioner failed to see that there is no liability on the appeilant herein under workman's compensation Act or under the Insurance policy. The respondents/applicants failed to prove Employer - Employee relationship between the 4th respondent/1st opposite party and deceased, as such, they are not entitled to any compensation but the rearned commissioner failed to appreciate this fact and passed an award in favour of the respondents. The appellant further pleaded that the compensation
I \
I
l
SSRN,J CNIA No 394 o12022
awarded by the learned Commissioner is not in accordance with Section 4, schedule IV of the Act, thereby, the Commissioner committed an error in granting a sum of Rs.7,71,860/- with interest @ L2o/o per annum.
I
SSRN.J CMA No 394 of2022
applicant No.1 by name Shaik Rafeeq, who herein after will be referred as deceased was working as driver on a lorry bearing Number MH 31CB 9699 under the employment of the 1't opposite party. On 20-10-2014, he was on duty on the above said lorry along with a cleaner and while proceeding from Adilabad to Hyderabad with a load of empty botUes. As the driver of another lorry bearing No.AP 07TT 5477 parked his vehicle without any indicators and without taking any precautions, the deceased dashed the said lorry thereby, the deceased and another laborer of the said lorry died on the spot, while the cleaner of the lorry sustained injuries. The wife and parents of the deceased filed an application before the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-II, Hyderabad for compensation against the owner of the lorry by showing him as 1st opposite party and Insurance Company from which the owner obtained the policy against the lorry by showing it as . a 2'd opposite party. The 1't opposite party did not choose to file any counter. Opposite party No.2 i.e., appellant herein contested the application. During enquiry, the wife of the deceased was examined as AW,1. She has marked Exs.A1 to A1O. The appellant herein did not examine any witness but marked the true copy of the insurance policy as Ex.81. The rearned commissioner having
\ \
.t SSRN.] CMA No.394 of2022
considered the oral and documentary evidence allowed the application with a direction as stated supra.
Whether the order of the learned Commissioner by which the amount of Rs.7,71,807/- was awarded in favour of the respondents No.1 to 3 is liable to be set aside ?
I
t
\
SSRN,J CMA No.394 of2022
B. The contents oF the FIR and charge sheet would show that the deceased while proceeding from Adilabad to Hyderabad met with an accident, died on the spot. The documents marked as Exs.Al to 46 would show that soon after the accident, a report was presented to the concerned police, who have completed the other formarities rike inquest on the dead body of the deceased, scene of offence panchanama. A Final report was filed with regard to the above accident. It is true, the 1st opposite party who is shown as owner of the vehicle did not choose to contest the application. The learned Commissioner having verified these documents came to a conclusion that the deceased was working as a driver of the lorry owned by the l't opposite party, and that the deceased was having valid and effective license and he rightly came to a conclusion that the relationship between the deceased and 1"t opposite party as employer and employee has been proved. The evidence discroses that the deceased died during the course of employment as driver on the lorry of the 1st opposite party. The Insurance policy marked before the learned Commissioner shows that the 1.t opposite party obtained an insurance policy which covers the risk of the employee. The learned Commissioner having considered all the material aspects, oral and documentary evidence came to a correct conclusion about
Ii
I
6
SSRN,J
CMA No.394 of2022
the right of the respondents/appricants to craim compensation and awarded compensation as per the provisions of the Act. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the orders and appear is liabre to be dismissed.
- In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
ConsequenHy, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
To
Sd/-K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT R GISTRAR / //TRUE COPYII ) SECTI OFFICER
'ilit$ft'+"Jt'il5T,'lElZTff (with records) [Bil,,",*",{fl }Ut'J:[Hyderabad
i, Eii FF ii il SRf t fi,Tfi:.fli,"S : 1"o l3:,,,""io
", "r
I ?,lS BS B";ko r*,"nn, An;ii,"yti,llii"1i#Tdpuci
frJ
8AC,'
I
i
HIGH COURT
DATED:0610912022
JUDGMENT
CMA.No.394 of 2022
i{ r4 7E
/;''
llo
l
2 7 JAN 2023
(:;
\l, *'
.-1.:
A0<br>,Na*
DISMISSING THE CMA, WITHOUT COSTS.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the order of the learned Commissioner awarding compensation is liable to be set aside?
Whether a valid employer-employee relationship was established between the deceased and the vehicle owner?
Whether the Commissioner erred in assessing the compensation amount and interest rate?
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
SHAIK VASEEMA
HAZRATH BEE
SHAIK RAHEEM
SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
