Dismissed

Mr.Hardeep Singh v. Smt.Harleem Kaur Bajwa and Anr.

Telangana HC8 Mar 2022CMA/681/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two appeals under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, confining the impugned order by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad, awarding Rs. 2,12,964/- to a claimant.

What did the court decide?

CMA No. 654 of 2007 and No. 681 of 2007 were dismissed without costs, confirming the award of Rs. 2,12,964/- by the Commissioner.

Mr.Hardeep Singh Vs Smt.Harleem Kaur Bajwa… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE AI HYDERABITTE^{OF TELANGANA}

¶2

tlq:^ol'^'"a frGHrH DAV oF [4ARCH IWO THOUSAND ANrO rWrr,r' rWJ'

¶3

rHE HoNouRAB.u ![ttilrr,"u p.sREE suDHA

¶4

MAN o 54 0F 2007 .M-A. N S: 654 AND 1 F 0 7

¶5

Appeal under Section 30 *ornr"n,s Compensation Act, agarnst the Order in W.C.No.146 of 2006 dated ,OrOor compensarjon,,o o,,,,,,ni"o,1;:::::,'::JjJ,T ;rilffil"., ", ",,"n1,

¶6

Between:

¶7

IlifiE:EIJ:Bffiiir:i,flf;:{*1ru',:Lllo"rlr"ll,o,.o"",*DivisionarManaserDorV

¶8

AND ...AeeELLANT/ 2No opposrrE pARTy

¶9

Mr.. Hardeep Sinoh. S/o I resrdrng ar New ooinp"rrys{i"T,llSsingh^cleaner cum 2nd Driver temporarily ...RespondenU Applicant B a jwa R oa d L i n es, ' ifl L:,il::"J" f;:[?,,]e #1i; ft !i? dfj:'* ffli"?R/o ...RESpoNDENT/ 1sr oppostrE pARTy

¶10

For the Appeltant : SRt V.VENKATARAMI REDDY, Advocate For the Respondent No..l : SRI P.SRIDHAR RAO, Advocate For the Respondent No.Z : NONE AppEARED CMA NO, 81 F 2007

¶11

Appeal under section 3o of w.c.Act, against the order in w c.No.146 of 2006 dared 2010612007 0n the fire of the commissioner for workmen,s compensation and Assislant Commissioner of Labour, Hvderabarj

¶12

Between

¶13

[:J6:',,"r"5;S:!;fi"".iJ:[o'"^{sinshcreanercum2nd Driver temporar,rv residins ar}

¶14

...Appe anv Applicant And

¶15

S.nl. Harteen Kaur Baiwe._W/o..Sri Jag_It Singh Bajwa R/o. Bajwa Road Ltnes, ^^{{p.G-alve Bavrpatya.2"d Ftoor HosurHoad,-Banoito?e -} z. rhe^(Jflentat tnsurance Company Limited. rep.. bt its Divisional lvlanager D.O.lV Pawani Esrate, Capitot Bu ilding,^{'Khairatabad,} Hv6"iiO"J-

¶16

.,.RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶17

For the Appellant : sRl p.sRlDHAR RAo, Advocate

¶18

For the Respondent No.2 : SRI V.VENKATARAMI REDDy, Advocate

¶19

For the Respondent No.1 : NONE APpEARED

¶20

The Court de\ivered^{the {o\owing: JUDGMENT}

¶21

HON'BLE^{SMT JUSTICE P.SREE ST]DI-IA} C. N OS .6 5^{4&681 of2001}

¶22

¶23

Since^{the issueinvolved in both the appeals is one} andthesameandtheyarebeingheardtogetherand disposed^{of byway of this common]udgment'}

¶24

2.^{For the sake of convenience'the parties hereinwill} be refenccl^{to as arrayed beforethe Cpurt below'}

¶25

3.C.M.A.No.654of2007iSfiiedbytheOriental lnsr.trance^{Company Limitecl aggrieved b'v the orcler} datecl 20-06-2007^{passed n W'C'No'146of 2006 by the} Commissioner^{for(orkmen's Compensation8{} As s istant^{Commiss ione r of Labour- I, H1'derabad'} 4. C.M.ANo.681^{of 2OO7 is filed by the claimant} stating that^{he was employed by the 1" resPondentas a} cleaner-cum-Driver on lorrybeaing No.KA 01D 2599 and while so, on 25.07.2A06, he was proceeding from

¶26

-t...\

¶27

¶28

Nagpur to Hlderabad, ar about 6.00 a.m., and when he reached near rhe outskins of Argu.l Village on N.FlNo.Z. anodrer lony bearing No.KL llE 71l2came in opposirc dirrction in a rash and negligent rnanner ancl clashcd against his ioryr., due to which, he sustarned grievous injuries on his righr leg ancl hand. Ther.eafter, he was shifted ro Gandhi Hospital, Secturderabad and he underwenr suryery on 1g.08.2006. The 1* respondenq who is the owner of the lorr1., was aware of the accident and the lorry was insured with the 2d respondent_ Insurance Company and hence, both the lst 2161 fnd respondents are liable to pay the compensation @^{Rs.5,00,000/-.}

¶29

,) Despite of service of notice, rhc 1,, responclentowrrer of the vehicle had not appear-cd :rncl c{id not choose to file counter and hence, hc was made set

¶30

¶31

The^{2nd respondent-InsuranceCompany f,led} ex pdrt€. countef denying^{the ailegationsmade by the applicant'} contended^{that the 1" resPondent in collusion with the} 'applicrtrrt,^{I-ras not intrmatecl about the occurrenceof the} ;lLLi(1r'iti^{,tllcl lllis rlol is.'*r-tctl attl nrlttt:c ttltlli-tct-c ts nrl} lr.ilrjLt'.^{()11 iis 1)llrl ro 1l'tt rllc (,ltlPt'tls'lti,n ltis furthet} aoltti';lt1t't1^{tll:tt tllt' lLlllr)tlL1t ()f cr)1111)ul1\lttiotrclltLt'r-rec11l!} tlrr riltltlLcltrlt^{ts crct:ssivc arrcl crolllitar-tt'}

¶32

Ilt,sLnQ oll tllc^{above plcadillgs' thc;\ssistzrnt} (-r.,r'r-ut'tis-*ictttcr oI T allour, 1'1r'clelabad,^Fran-redthe

¶33

tirllortr.ng issues.

¶34

Whethet the^{applicant Mr.HardeepSinghmetwithan} incident on 25.07^{2006cluringthecourse and out of} and in the course^{of his employmentas cleaner-cum-} 2'"' cLiver on^{thelorr-v bearingNo.I{A 01D 2599 in the} trrrpkrlnrcnt of^{Lhc 1'' oPI).Parrrarld sttstaincdinjttrics} rrr tirt rrctriic;rt: lJ , r':. u lllLt l: rir(' l)(1'(('ltlili,r ,,i LL.,rLriilr rt rt cl r,rrI.('(III(IILIr:: ()l L.lfltil! (.lll) )C Il .Lrtii lr,rl 1;r rirc rDIltcrr t: \, itr, 1p1.1 11.1 rlr I() Prt] L()1)l])(,lltrlll(rl): ]1(]

¶35

¶36

Wi.rat is the^{an.rount oI col]lPensatl()i1cntltlerlblthc} appLicaflt?

¶37

During^{enquiry, the clatmanthimselfwas examined} as A\X/.1 and on^{his behali A(/2 rvas examined' aucl} Lrs..\1 1o^{\13\-clic lllir-ficd \o} uittltsst's^\t('1(' \':1 : crrtt-rirtc'tl^{,,rl bc'i.reii oi tllc rcsllor'tcit'ttls'lrLrr Lr'lll} lrarlie cl on thcit^bchalf.

¶38

[tcr c()llsiclcril.]g^{tl.rc oral ltrltltloc-tltrlctltrtt't} t:r'iclct-lcc.^{tllr'\ssisrant (''ltl-ltl-rissiorlelril'lrlroLit.'} c.li lls.^{i.--r..(, I} ir)\-l]'l'ti: I-lvclcr:abacl,^{aw,udccla sLll-ll} comPellsauon^{along with sramPfee oi Rs.346/-and} advocate^{fee of Rs.500/-, totalingto Rs'1'73'710/- and} directed^{the respondentsto deposit the said amoutrt irr} anv Nadonalized,ank^{rvithin a pcrrod of 30 davs,thrling} rr'l-ric1-r^{thc applicantis entitlecl for itlterc-*t Ql' lZ" i) ]) :r' ()lr} rlrc lttttolttlt^{ottcrltt-t1'li't-tsltirltll-t rltll tllt' tlltrt' "t llli} 'tcc1t1eitt.^{l)rsrll"rr'illq tlltt:1'ttnr ''l tllt' i''trliclttlttr' rlrt}

¶39

¶40

extent ol 4Ao/o towards eaffring capacity, rhe claimant f iled this appeal. Aggrieved by the said orcler, the Insrrrence C-ompany filed C.M.A.No.654 of 2A07, contenclng drat the^{(bmrnissioner} has nor in correcr in taking the loss of eaming capacity as 60ulo u,hen thc disabilirysuffered bythe injured was only40%.

¶41

Heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the material available on record. 10. Leamed counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contended that though the applicant sustained only 4ooh disabiliry the commissioner has taken the loss of earaing capaciti, of the applicant as 6006 ancl it may be reduced to 4Ao/o ancl in suppoft oi his contention, hc placecl reliance on rhe clecision of the Apex (bLrm in

¶42

¶43

OtLt:tt/tt/ ltt.rrrtirtttt^{(.otttftrrrtl} I'itttt'/ttl trttrl^{.\lnltrl..\rttir',rritl}

¶44

rtt/^tt /lt tl .

¶45

On the other^{hand, learnedcounsel aPPeanng for} the applicant contended^{that thoughthe applicant has} suffered 1Oo%^{Ioss ofearning capacirythe} Commissioner^{has disallowedthe claim of 4Oolo earning} Leamed counsel^{fur-ther contendedthat the} caPaclty. ,rpplicant w.u^{employedas cleaner-cum-ddveru'ith thc} 2'rd rc5pondent and^{he has valid driving licence' Lear-ncd} counsel fr.rrtirer^{contended that the Doctor' who rvas} examined^{as Aw2, in his examinationcategorically} deposed that^{the iniuries suffered by the applicant are} grievous^{in nature and due to non-union of fracture'the} applicant^{cannot sit on the floor and cannot perform the} duties^{of cleaner andassessed the disabiliry sustainedby} the applicant^{as 4Oolo and also stated that the applicant}

¶46

'^{(zoo9)6 Scc280}

¶47

¶48

sLrflcred 100% loss of e arT[ng capacrty :1S C cancr. Learnecl counsel ltrnher contended rhat es per rhe Xlinimtrn-r V'agcs Act, the C-ornmissioner h,rs talren thc salary of the applicant Rs.2,6Q7/- and it needs no inter{erence by this Coun.

¶49

1,2. There is no dispute that the accident that occurred on 25.07.2006 and the applicant has sustained grievous injuries. The applicant in his evidence stated that he was working as Cleaner on the lorry bearing No.KA O1D 2599 and the police records also clearly indicate that the applicant was second driver and at the time of acciclent. Harclayal Singh was driving the said ionrr. Since the rrpplicrrnt has nor produced any driving licence, his nature of job uas considered as Cleaner ancl the C_ommissioner has awarded a sum of k.2,607/_ as salary. The Doctor, who was examined as A1M2, srated that the applicant has

¶50

¶51

suff'ered 40% cLsabiliry, wfuch is panial and permanenr and therc i's no possibility olrreducrion in the crrsabirityin future and the applicant suffered 1o0olo loss of eanring capacity. By considering rhe said evidence of the doctor and the narure of the duties of the applicant, rhe Commissioner assessed that the applicanr has suffered 60% Ioss of eammg capacity. The Commissioner has considered all the aspecm in right perspective and awarded a sum of Rs.1,Z2,g 64/_ towards compensatlon, nhich needs no inter{erence bythis Coun. 13. In the resuh, 04A No.65 4 of 2aa7 filed by the Insurance C_ompany and No.681 ol ZAV fijecl bv the claimant are dismissed confinning the order datecl 2a-a6-2aa7 passed by the Crmmissioner for workmen,s Compensation and fusistant C-om-tnissioner of Labour_I, - Hlderabad. No costs.

¶52

¶53

Misce[aneous^{petitions, if any, pending shall stand}

¶54

closed.

¶55

//TR,E^coPY//

¶56

ttt"",iif H'S[+=-.^"J

¶57

t="**^oFFlcER

¶58