Allowed

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Smt.Yasmeen and 3 Ors.

Telangana HC17 Mar 2022CMA/545/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil miscellaneous appeal, the High Court of Telangana allowed the appeal filed by New India Assurance Company Ltd. against an award of compensation granted by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. The court set aside the impugned order, holding that the fake driving licence of the deceased did not absolve the insurer of liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, but remained at libe

What did the court decide?

The order of the Assistant Commissioner was set aside; applicants entitled to 12% p.a. interest from accident date; appellant at liberty to recover compensation from vehicle owner.

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT , THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶4

C.M.A. NO: 545 OF 2010

¶5

Appeal under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation^{Act, against the Order} made in WC No.33 of 2005 dated 2711112009 on the^{file of the Commissionerfor} Workmen Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of^Labour -1,^T.Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavan, RTC Cross Roads, at Hyderabad.

¶6

Between:

¶7

The New lndia Assurance Company Ltd., rep by its Deputy^{l,4anager,T.P.Cell,D.No.} 5-2-17412.2'd Floor, lt4adanmohan Building, RP Road, Secunderabad. ..,APPELLANT/ OPP. PARTY NO.2

¶8

AND

¶9

Smt.Yasmeen, W/o.late Syed Jaffer Hussain Housewife

¶10

Syed Jilani, S/o.late Syed Jaffer Hussain,^lVlinor

¶11

Habeeb Unnisa, D/o.late Syed Jaffer Hussain,^l\ilinor [Respondent^{No.2 & 3 are minors rep. by their mother and naturalguardian}

¶12

Smt Yasmeen. 1"' Respondentl AII are R/o. H. N o.7-1231211 , SP Nagar, Ir/alkajgiri, Secunderabad.

¶13

. Respondents/ Applicants

¶14

Smt.Parveen, W/o.Hidayathulla Khan, Occ: Business Rlo.2-4-111lA, Sajid Pura, Siddipet, l,4edak District.

¶15

...RESPONDENT/ OPP.PARTY NO.1

¶16

For the Appellant : Ms. P.SATYA MANJULA, Advocate

¶17

For Respondent NOs.1 to 3 : SRI T.VENKATA RAJU GOUD, Advocate

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

,]]HE HON'BLE JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

¶20

CTVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.545 OF 2O1O

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Chall,:nging the order dt.27.ll.2OO9 passed in W.C. No.33 of 2005 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-1, Hyderabad seeking to set aside the order, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeai is filed by the New India Assurance Company l,td., Secunderabadf 2"a opposite party.

¶23

The f,lcts of the case in a nutshell are that, the deceased Shed KhajzL Hussain was employed by respondent/ lst opposite party as a driver on her 1orry bearing No. AP-11T-1253. On 05.06.2005,, the deceased was proceeding on the said lorry from Jamt, towards Chandrapur road and when he reached near Hiracli, Nagpur road, suddenly, another iorry bearing No.MH-3 l-AP-1552 came in a rash and negligent manner at high speecl and dashed against the lorry of the deceased, resultantly the deceased died on the spot. The respondent s/ applicants filed an application for grant of compensat,on of Rs.5,00,000/ -.

¶24

¶25

2 PSS,J^{</sup> CMA No.545 of 201O}

¶26

After adducing evidence and marking exhibits, the learned Assistant Commissioner granted an amount of Rs.4,21,ll2l- towards compensation. Aggrieved by the said order, the New India Assurance Company Ltd., /2"d opposite party preferred this Appeal.

¶27

Heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellanl /2"d opposite party and learned counsel appearing for the respondents / applicants.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellantl2.a opposite party contended that there is no documentary evidence to show that the deceased was working under the respondent/1"t opposite party. He further contended that the driver was holding fake driving licence and thus, they a,re not liab1e to pay compensation and further disputed awarding of interest.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for respondents/ applicants contended that as the Assistant Commissioner has rightly passed the order and it needs no interference by this Court.

¶30

A perusal of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour shows that deceased was a driver on the lorry bearing No. AP-11T-1253 and employed by the first

¶31

PSS,J CMA No.545 of 2010

¶32

¶33

respondent He met with an accident on 05.06.2005 and died on the spot His 1egal heirs filed the petition for compensation.

¶34

B. Insurance Company in their counter contended that the deceased was not having a valid driving licence, and thus, they are not liable to pay compensation and they also examined RW. 1 to su bstantiate their version. Thev claimed that Ex.A6 was not gi ven by them and it is a fake driving licence and deceased was not authorized to drive any vehicle

¶35

In issue No.2, the Assistant Commissioner extracted the said point and he relied upon the citation reported in the case of United l.ndia Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Seema Devil wherein it is held that:

¶36

" Insurance Compang could raise all defences under the Workmen's. Compensatton Act unlike the restricted defences auailable to it under Section 149 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. HouLeuer, Insurance Compang cannot escape liabili:g for the death of a driuer, who died in accidetnt tuhile on dutg on the ground of his drtuing license fake driuing license. When a ruorkrnan died in an accident, the fact that he had c'btained employment on the basis of false qualiJication tuould not be a deknce open to the emplcAer and consequentlA the Insurance Compang."

¶37

And held that Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation.

¶38

'^{:oor1IvlLLJ(Supp1)BOC 228(HP)}

¶39

4 PSS,J CMA No.545 of 2010

¶40

As per citation repbrted in 2009(3) ALD 616;^National Insurance Co., Ltd., Eiuru,^{West Godavari District Vs. Dupati} Singaiah & others, it was held that driver^{wds driving the} vehicle with a fake licence and there is clear^{breach of a} specific condition of the^{policy, InsuranceCompany is not} iiable.

¶41

In fact, when there is no valid driving^{license, Insurance} Company is not liable to^pay compensation^{and thus, theycan} be exonerated from^payingthe compensation.^{But, in this case} as already the amount was deposited,^{and they are at liberty to} recover the same from the owner of the^vehicle.

¶42

The Assistant Commissioner directed both^{1st and2"d opposite} parties to deposit the compensation amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the claimants are entitled for interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of compensation from the date of the accident. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of SABERABIBI YAKUBBHAI SHAIKH^V/s

¶43

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY2, thc

¶44

respondents/ applicants are entitled for interest @ l2oh^pet annum from the date of accident to the date of realisation.^In this case, the amount was already deposited by the^Insurance

¶45

2 zotq e) scc z9s

¶46

PSS,J CMA No.545 oI 2010

¶47

¶48

Company and thus, the applicants are entitled to interest @ l2o/o per annum from the date of accident till the date of such deposit. Pe:titioners are at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

¶49

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by setting asitle the order of the Assistant Commissioner in W.C. No.33 of 2OO5 dated 27 .ll.2OO9. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any,

shall stand closed.

I I

,TRUE COPY//

Sd/-B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR

¶55

SECTIO OFFICER

¶56

To 1 The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Assistant Comm jssioner of Labour-1, T.Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavan,RTC Cross Roads, at Hyderabad. (with records)

¶57

One CC to \4s. P.Satya Manjula, Advocate (OPUC) 3. 9ne 99^{to .Sri VenkataRajuGoud, Advocate (OPUC)} 4. Two CD Copies One Spare Copy

[?'

I-IIGH COURT

DATED:1710312022

,f' :
,1'o'
a: $ r [\iB ?$I? i
,-)
ki
,L ,,//' I

ORDER

CMA.No.545 of 11010

ALLOWING THE: CMA.

6
1)

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

¶68

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY^{OF IVARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶69

. PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P,SREE SUDHA

¶70

C.M.A. NO: 545 OF 2010

¶71

Between:

¶72

The New lndia Assurance Company^{Ltd., repby its Deputyltrlanager,T.P.Cell' D.No.} 5-2-17 412, 2nd Floor,^{l,4adanmohani3uilding, RP Road,Secunderabad.} .,.APPELLANT/ OPP. PARTY NO.2

¶73

AND

¶74

1 . Smt.Yasmeen, W/o.late Syed Jaffer^{Hussain Housewife}

¶75

Syed Jilani, S/o.late Syed Jaffer^{Hussain,[V]inor}

¶76

Habeeb Unnisa, D/o.late Syed Jaffer^{Hussain, It/inor} lRespondent^{No.2 & 3 are hinors rep. by their motherand naturalguardian} 5mt Yasmeen, 1't Respondentl

¶77

Arr are R/o.H.No.7-123t2t1, sP Nagar,^{Ir/alkajsiri,} :::H:$:X:lits/ Appticants

¶78

Smt.Parveen, W/o. Hidayathulla Khan,^{Occ: Business R/o.2-4-111lA, Sajid} Pura' siddipet' Medak District

¶79

...RESpoNDENT/ opp.pARTy No.1

¶80

Appeal under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation^{Act, against the Order} made in WC No.33 of 2005 daled^{2711112009on the file of the Commissionerfor} Workmen Compensation and Assistant Commissioner^{of Labour} -l'^T.Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavan, RTC Cross Roads,^{at Hyderabad.}

¶81

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon^{perusing the grounds of} appeal, the Order of the Commissioner and the material^{papers in the case and upon} hearing the arguments of lr/s P.Satya l,4anjula, Advocate for the appellant and^Sri Venkata Raju Goud, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to^3.

¶82

This Court while allowing the CIr4A has made the following decree

¶83