Partly allowed

Shaik Ahmed v. G.Krishna Goud and 2 Ors.

Telangana HC11 Mar 2022CMA/630/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under the WCA, the High Court held that while the salary determination did not require interference, the appellant was entitled to interest from the date of accident to the date of deposit by the insurance company as per Supreme Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; Insurance Company directed to deposit interest within one month; compensation with interest allowable from date of accident.

Shaik Ahmed Vs G.Krishna Goud and 2 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²⁰⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶6

C.M.A. NO: 630 OF 2010

¶7

Appeal under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, against the Judgment/ decree in W.C.No.178 of 2004 dated 2.910312010 on the file of the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Shaik Ahmed, S/o.Shaik Hyder Ex-Driver Rl/o.lbadath Khana, Khoja Colony, Nizamabad A. P.

¶10

...APPELLANT/ CLAIMANT

¶11

AND

¶12

G.Krishna Goud, S/o.Venkat Narsa Goud, Major Owner R/o.5-2-2l3, Weekly Bazar, Nizamabad, A.P.

¶13

United lndian lnsurance Co Ltd., rep by Branch Manager Fl/o.Anupama Colony, Jagdalpur, Baster District, M.P.

¶14

Shaik Abdul Rahaman, S/o.Shaik Hidar, Major FJo.7-11-23, Khoja Colony, Nizamabad, A.P.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶16

For the Appellant : SRI K.M.MAHENDER REDDY, Advocate

¶17

Forthe Respondents: SRI NARESH BYRAPANENI, Advocate

¶18

The Court delivered the following : JUDGMENT

¶19

T. IF) HON'BLE JUSTICE P. SREE Iilll.rHr\

¶20

( lvIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAI NO.63O OF :2r)1o

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Challe: rging the order dt.29.03.2010 prssed in W.C. No.178 of 2OO4 by the Commissioner lor Workmen's Compensatir n and Deputy Commissioner cf Labour, Nizamabad, st-'eking enhancement of the conrpenr;ation, this Civil Miscellr neous Appeal is filed bv the ciain-::r ,.

¶23

It is t re case of the applicant/ appell,1^- 1. ttrat he was employed br the l"t respondent as a driver c rr Lorry bearing No.APJ 4291 ,. Later, the said lorry was pur<:lL: secl by the 3ra \:AS respondent. On 27.O3.2004, the applicarrl ,/irp;rellant proceeding f om Sarangapur to Nizamabad zur<[ rvhr:n the lorry reached nea Arsapally Village shivar road at €-r,'ru1 8.30 p.m., in order to ; void dashing a buffalo, he applir:rl suclden break, due to r,r.hic r, the lorry got uncontrolled, dashe ci a cyclist and therea-fter, t ie lorry turned turtle, and the e 11,:,lictLnt, cleaner and fivc o her labourers received mrrltipt( and grievous injuries. Si ice the applicant/ appellant sufft:r t:,:t fi'acture and multiple injr ries all over his body, immediate l', he was shifted to Governmt nt Hospital, Nizamabad. Later, lLt^..vas referred to

¶24

l PSS,J CMA No.630 of 2010

¶25

Hyderabad. The applicant/appellant filed the application for grant of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. After adducing evidence and marking exhibits, the learned Deputy Commissioner granted an amount of Rs.3,13,380/- towards compensation. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant/ appellarrt preferred this Appeal.

¶26

Heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the 2"d respondent/lnsurance Company.

¶27

Learned counsel lor the appellalt contended that the Deputy Commissioner has erred in taking the sa1ary of the applicant/appellant as Rs.3,700/- instead of Rs.4,500/- per month and also erred in not granting interest @l2ok p.a. from the date of accident till realization.

¶28

respondent/Insurance Company contended that as the Deputy Commissioner has rightly passed the order, it needs no interference by this Court.

¶29

A perusa-l of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour shows that in the written statement the previous owner of the lorry i.e. l"t respondent stated that

¶30

PSS,J (l{A I,1o.630 of 2010

¶31

I I

¶32

the applicar t/appellant u,as \'orking ,r.ith hi r arld he paid sa,la{ ol Rs. ;,O00/- per month along with battr rf Its.2O/- per dr.y. Thr reafter, the l"t respondent soll the lorry to respondent Jo.3. Respondent No.3 in his v;r'tter statement stated that L c engaged the applicant/appellant as a driver'"rtth salarl of Rs. 1,500/- per month without any tr:ttla, but he has not issued a 11' salary certificate to that effect iurd he was not examined I etbre the Deputy Commission:r'. However, considerirlg ris nature of u,ork, the Deputy Cor:.mir;sioner has taken his se lary as Rs.3,7OO/ per month lor t he purpose of calcr-rlation c^- the compensation. In the absr:rr(:e of evidence regarding th: income of the applicant/appe1lrLrrt, ,he Deputy Commission r has rightly taken the wages as c:r'th: Mrnimum Wages Act ar .d it needs no interference.

¶33

7 . The t eputy Commissioner directed -tre Insurance Companv as well as the owner of the vehicle i €. lst respondent to deposit I1s.3,14,507/- within 30 da1's fi'r,..n the date of receipt of th, order, failing which, it carries int:rest @12%o p.a. But, as per -he decision of the Supreme CotLrt in the case of SABERABIB YAKUBBHAI SHAIKH ! 7I; NATIONAL

¶34

PSS.J CMA No.630 of 2010

¶35

INSURANCE COMPANY1, the applicant/appellant is entitled for interest @ l2o/o per annum from the date of accident to the date of realisation. In this case, the amount was already deposited by the Insurance Company and thus, the applicarrt is entitled to interest @ 12% per arnum from the date of accident till the date of such deposit. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the interest within a period of one month from the date of order, and on such deposit, the applicant/ appellant is entitled to withdraw balance arnount with interest.

¶36

Accordingly, the Civii Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

Tot+ 1z1scc²⁹⁸

Sd/-K.SRINIVASA JOINT REGIST R ,TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER

¶42

1 The Commissioner for^{Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner} of Labour, Nizamabad.^{(with records)}

¶43

2 One CC to Sri K.M.lvlahender^{Reddy,Advocate} [OPUC] 3 One CC to Sri Naresh^{Byrapaneni' Advocate} [OPUC] 4 Two CD Copies 5 One Spare Copy

Kj -#-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1110312022

/
.</ *
s
f
.J
-:f
F
\ i/
c
,,/z

¶48

ORDEIl

¶49

CMA.No.630 of 20'0

¶50

ALLOWING THE C VIA IN PART, WITHOUT COS'TS.

¶51

1rJ
(

Shaik Ahmed v. G.Krishna Goud and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Ahmed v. G.Krishna Goud and 2 Ors.

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

New India Assurance Company Vs Mr. Chinna Narasimha and Anr.

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Jada Muthyali and 4 Ors.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mohd Saber Hussain and Anr.

Lakhanamoni Sathya Sovudu Vs Lakhanamoni Narayan [died]

G.Satyanarayana Vs St.Georges Grammer School

Shakeel Ahmed Vs Mohd Akheel and Anr.