Partly allowed

Shakeel Ahmed v. Mohd Akheel and Anr.

Telangana HC11 Mar 2022CMA/675/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment is a composite record containing two distinct civil miscellaneous appeals (Nos. 676 of 2006 and 675 of 2010) decided by the High Court for the State of Telangana, involving workmen's compensation claims, disability assessment modifications, and interest awards.

What did the court decide?

The orders were modified to reflect 50% disability. The insurance companies were directed to deposit interest at 12% per annum within one month.

Shakeel Ahmed Vs Mohd Akheel and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD}

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY^{OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW^TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE^{P.SREE SUDHA}

¶5

CIVIL MISCELLANEO US APPEAL^{NO: 676OF 2006}

¶6

Appeal filed Under^{section 30 of workmen's compensationAct against the} orderdated10,03.2006madeinW.C.No.32ol2oo4onthefileofthe commissioner for^{workmen's compensation and Assistant commissioner of} Labour lV at HYderabad Between:

¶7

¶8

NationallnsuranceCompanyLimited,Rep.byitsRegionalManager,National lnsurance Company^{Limited, Moghul Courts,Basheerbagh' Hyoerabao'}

¶9

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . M. Raiender Reddy,^{S/o Sathi ReddyTCarDriver Fl/o H'No"l6-11-742} Moosirambagh,^{Vialakpet,Hyderabad.}

¶12

2-Brahmaiah,S/oSriAppaiah,age:notknownC/oSriGoverdhan,Fl/oKothur, Mahaboobnagar District-

¶13

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER

¶14

CM AMP. NO: 1355 OF²⁰⁰⁶

¶15

i r"'I i.:!:,

¶16

Petition under se'ction 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High courtmaybe pleased} suspend the order^{passedin wc.No. 32 of 2OO5 dated 10-3-2006 on the file of} the commissioner for_ workmen's^{compensation and Asst. commissionerof} Labour lV at Hyderabad,^{pending disposal ofthe CMA.}

¶17

Counsel for the Appellant^{:SRl. N.S.BHASKARA RAO}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1:SRl'T.VISWARUPA CHARY}

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2: None appeared}

¶20

The CourtJ"hvcr, the following:^{JUDGMEN T}

¶21

¶22

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

¶23

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.676 OF 2006

¶24

JTJDGMEI[T:

¶25

This C.M.A. is filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd., against the orders of the Asst. Comndssioner of Labour-lV in W.C. No. 32 of 2OO4 dated IO.O3.2OO6.

¶26

It is the case of the appellant/respondent No.2 that the order of the Court below is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The lower Court has taken ttre physical disability of the applicant at 5O7o and have taken the age oi the applicant as 38 years as per Ex.A.2, instead of 23 years, to assess the compensation. The learned Commissioner ought to have assessed the compensation by treating the disability at 50%, instead of 10O%.

¶27

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

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the doctor who examined the petitioner stated that physical disability as 5O06 but the Commissioner has considered^10O7o for the calculation of^{the compensation and it is excessive' In}

¶29

2 PSS,J CMA No.676 of 2006

¶30

fact, they further stated that as per Ex.A4 the fractures are united and there is no disability at all. However^perusa,l of^the order shows Civil Surgeon'Ortho at District Headquarters^was examined as A.W.2 and he assessed the disability as 5O7o. On perusal of X-ray, injury certificate, discharge card and^a-lso after physical assessment by following the^guidelineshe assessed the disability and further stated^thatwith physiotherapy the condition of the applicant may^{improve or} not improve. The applicant^{was working as a driver} due to the injuries sustained by him^{inthe accidenthe carnot} discharge his duties as he^{was doing previously.The} Commissioner relied upon the Judgment^{of theA.P.High} Court and has considered loss of earning^{capacity as 100%o} however considering the age, occupation,^{natureof injuries} sustained by the applicant the loss of earning capacity^loook appears to be excessive. As^per the medical evidence^{it is to be} taken as 5001,. Accordingly the order of the Commissioner^is modified.

¶31

Commissioner directed the insurance company to deposit the amount u,ithin 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing u,hich, it carries interest (@,l2oh frorn the date of receipt of the order, failing which, it carries interest @l2ok p.a. But, as

¶32

-) PSS,J CMA No.676 of 2OO6

¶33

per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of SABERABIBI YAKUBBHAI SHAIKH V/s NATIOIIAL INSURANCE COMPAIIIYT, the applicant/appellant is entitled for interest @ 12o/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 applicant is entitled to interest @ l2o/o per annum 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 receipt of copy of this order, and on such deposit, the applicant/appellant is permitted to withdraw the same.

¶34

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in

¶35

part. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any,

¶37

shall stand closed.

¶38

12ot4 cz) 1cc zqq

¶39

SD/-B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR

¶40

//TRUE COPY// SECTI do&J;.,"=*

¶41

To,

¶42

The Commissioner^{for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant} Co-mmissioner^{of Labour lV at Hyderabad (with records)}

¶43

One CC to SRl.^{N.S.BHASKARARAgAdvocate IOPUC]}

¶44

One CC to SRl.^{T.VISWARUPACHARIAdvocate[OPUC]}

¶45

Two CD CoPies

¶46

One Spare^CoPY

C]DI-

1-: .. HIGH COU RT

DATED:1610312022

. ORDER

,i CMA.No .676 of 2006 .:

¶53

1 $E sT4 lc-
Y
{,'
() 1 4 JUL ?077" o
}.
,t
.k
o€spATC rr(.O

¶54

¶55

ALLOWING THE CMA- IN^PffEI,

¶56

v,
\iY t
d

¶57

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

¶58

FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY^{OF I\iIARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶59

PRESENT

¶60

THE HONOURABLE SMT^{JUSTICEP.SREESUDHA}

¶61

CIVIL MISCEL LANEOUS^{APPEAL NO: 675 OF 2010}

¶62

Appeal Under Section³⁰ of^{Workmen'sCompensationAct againstthe} Order in W.C. No.^{7 of 2OO9 (NF) Dated1O.O2.2O10 on the file of the} commissioner for^{workmen'scompensationand Assistantcommissioner of} Labour, Nizamabad.

¶63

Between:

¶64

Shakeel Ahmed S/o.Shaik^{Yadulla, Aged 31 years, Occ: Ex-Cleaner,} R/o.Rakasipet, Bhodhan,^{Nizamabad' A.P.}

¶65

...APPELLANT/CLAIMANT

¶66

AND

¶67

Mohd Akheel S/o.Mohd^{Jaffar, Major, Occ: Owner of Lorry,Rl/o.Sarangpur,} Nizamabad, A.P.

¶68

New lndia Assurance^{Co Ltd,,Rept by Branch Manager, Poojya Singh} Panchayat Building,^'l st Floor,^{MG Road, Panvel - 410 206, Mumbai.}

¶69

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶70

Counsel for the Appellant:^{SRI K. M. MAHENDER REDDY}

¶71

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1: SRI K. SUBBARAO}

¶72

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2: SRI B. NARAYANAREDDY}

¶73

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶74

¶75

HON'BLE JTISTICE P. SREE SUDHA

¶76

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.67s oF 2010

¶77

ORDER

¶78

Challenging the order dated lO.O2.2OlO passed in W.C. No.7 of 2OOg by the Commissioner for Workmen,s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, seeking enhancement of the compensation, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimant-appellant.

¶79

It is the case of the claimant/ appellant that he was employed by the l"t respondent as a cleaner on a monthly salary of Rs.4,OOOl- arrd batta of Rs.SO/- per day. On 21.12.2OO5, at about 3.3O a.m., while he was returning from Piduguralla towards Bodhan with a load of lime bags on a LorrSr bearing No.AP-25T-7865 and when it reached near Narsing on NH-7, at the same time, another lorry bearing No.AP-02,5959 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction and dashed against the claimant/appellant's lorry. Due to which, the

¶80

claimant/ appellant received multiple and grievous fracture injuries all over his body. Later, he was given Iirst aid at Narsing and he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad.

¶81

2 PSS,J CMA No.675 of 2OlO

¶82

The claimant/appellant liled W.C.No.7 of 2OO9 for grant of compensation of Rs.S,OO,OOO / _.

¶83

After adducing evidence and marking exhibits, the Assistant Commissioner granted an amount of Rs.3,34,931/_ towards compensation. Being not satisfied with the quaatum of compensation, the claimant/appellant preferred this Appeal.

¶84

4 Heard arguments of both the learned counsel.

¶85

A perusal of thg order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour shows that, claimant was a cleaner with a salary of Rs.4,OOO/_ per month and batta Rs.50/_ per day as on the date of accident i.e.,2l.|2.2OOS. In the counter filed by the 1"t respondent-ou,ner of the vehicle, he admitted 'that he was paying Rs.3,SOO/_ per month to the appellant and he was working with him for the last six months prior to the accident. The salary certificate was marked as Ex.A25. The Assistant Commissioner observed that there was difference with regard to the wages .as stated by the owner of the vehicre and by the claimant. But, the l"t respondent was not examined before the Assistant Commissioner. Thus, the Assistant Commissioner has considered the wages as per the Minimum wages Act. Further, the appelrant-claimant examined pw2_

¶86

t I

¶87

¶88

-) PSS,J CMA No.675 of 201O

¶89

Doctor, who assessed the disab llity @ 600/o and accordingly, issued Ex.A24-disability certificate. The Assistant Commissioner has taken all the aspects into consideration, awarded a sum of Rs.3,34,931/- towards compensation.

¶90

The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the Commissioner erred in taking the minimum wages instead of taking the wages as Rs.4,OOO/- per month as claimed by the appellant/claimant. He further contended that on considering the nature of injuries sustained, the Assistant Commissioner ought to have taken the disability of the appellant @ l00o/o instead of 600/o.

¶91

Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-lnsurance Company contended that the Assistant Commissioner has rightly awarded compensation and thus, it needs no interference.

¶92

¶93

B. Considering the age and nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant-claimant and the disability assessed by the doctor, the Assistant Commissione-r has rightly taken into consideration the disability of the appellant @) 6Ot'1, lor calculating the compensation. Hence, it needs no interference. Hovvever, the appellant-claimant is entitled to interest (tl l2ok

¶94

¶95

PSS,J CMA No.675 of 20 10

¶96

per arnum from the date of accident till the date of reaiization in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in SABI,I}ABTBT YAKTTBBHAI SHAIKII V. NATIONALTVSURAIVCE COMPANYI.

¶97

Since the 2"d resporldsnt_Insurance Company has already deposited the amount, the appellant is entiiled to interest @ 72%o p.a from tlle date of accident till the date of deposit.

¶98

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. The 2"d respondent_Insurance Company is directed to deposit tl.e interest within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and on such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the same. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶99

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

'^zolnp'1scc 298

To,

SD/-B.S.CHIRANJEEVI

JOINT REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPYII

¶104

SE cr/tkoirrcea

¶105

¶106

The Commissioner for Wffimen,s Compensalion and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, r.ri.r-rtJ t,,Jii, r""..o.f 2. one cc to SriK. M. fMahende, R.d;;:il;;;;I'fbrr.t ,, g gn" cc to sriK. Subba Rao, nav-JJte.i&j8i 4. one CC to Sri B. Naravana R"d;y,;;;,;tu"ideucl 5. Two CD Copies 3.,^{on. Spare Copy}

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 110312022

ORDER

$E ST r4-
r" li
ot) 14 JIJL 7i,
i, F.:rc,i.T

¶112

CMA.No.675 o12010

¶113

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CMA. WITHOUT COSTS.

¶114

nt) r.t

Shakeel Ahmed v. Mohd Akheel and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakeel Ahmed v. Mohd Akheel and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

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

Shaik Ahmed Vs G.Krishna Goud and 2 Ors.