Dismissed

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

Telangana HC10 Mar 2022CMA/695/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal, filed by an Insurance Company, challenged a workmen's compensation award granted to an auto driver. The Court upheld the Commissioner's order, holding that lack of transport endorsement did not invalidate the claim, relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding driving licence endorsement requirements for light motor vehicles.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, confirming the Commissioner's order, and the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs. 2,11,141/- along with interest of 12% per annum from the

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mohd… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶5

C.M.A. NO: 695 OF 2007

¶6

Appal under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, against the Order in W.C.No.72 of 2006 dated 04/06/2007 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle-l Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad T.Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavanam, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad.

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd., / D.O.l, rep by its Divisional ltilanager, lll Floor, Ramalaya Building, SD Road, Secunderabad - 500 003. rep. by United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd., / D.O.VI, Abids, Hyderabad-S0O 001.

¶9

...PETITIONER/ APPELLANT

¶10

AND

¶11

'1 . Mohd Saber Hussain, S/o.lt/ohd Osman Auto Driver R/o.Shapurnagar, Chintal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶12

.....ApplicanU Respondent No.1

¶13

Md.Samad Hussain, S/o.Osman Auto Owner R/o. H.No.9-5-83, Choutkur [V], Pulkal [M], lVedak District. (Appeal against R2 dismissed for default vide Court Order dated 30/03/16) ..,OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2/ RESPONDENT NO.2

¶14

For the Appellant : SRI SOMANCHI VENKATESWARLU, Advocate

¶15

For the Respondents : SRI C.SATISH KUMAR REDDY, Advocate

¶16

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶17

H ON|'BLE.SM.T JUS.TICE P. SREE SUDHA

¶18

C.M.A.No. 695 of 2007

¶19

TTDGNIE

¶20

Aggrieved by rhe order dated A4.A6.2AC7 passed in !7.CNo.72 of 2006 by the C-ommissioner for Vorkmen's C-ompensation and fusistant Commissioner of Labour, Hylerabad, the Insurance C-ompany has preferred the present appeal

¶21

The brief facts of the case are that the 1" respondentapplicant was empiopd by the I'a respondent as Driver on auto bearing No.AP 23 T 5642. On 10.08.2006 at about 17.00 houn, the applicant was proceeding from Sanga Reddy to Shivampet and when he reached near Beer Factory RTC bts bearing No.AP 1,lZ 551came in an opposite direction n'ith high speed and dashed the applicant's auto, due to which. the applicant received gri,:vous fracture and multiple injuries. Thereafter, he was shilted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, for treatment. Due to the said accident, the applicant became permanent and

¶22

¶23

¶24

partially disabled and lost his eaming capaciry. Flence, he sought Rs.4,00,000,/- towards compensation along with interest @ t8 7o Per^annum.

¶25

After considering the oral and documentary evidence and on hearing the leamed counsel appearing for the parties, the Commissioner granted an amount of Rs.2,11,141/- towards compensation. Challenging the same, the appellant-Insurance companyhas preferred this appeal.

¶26

4 Leamed counsei appearing for the appellant contended that the 1,, respondent-applicant is not eligible to drive the passenger auto without having the transport endorsement and badge issued bythe competent authoriry.

¶27

V4th regard to the said issue, in the impugned order, the Commissioner observed that the applicant is no way concemed with the said endorsement on the driving licence and the issue of having transport endorsement or non-transport on the driving licence cannot be a breach of conditions of the insurance policy and accordingly, directed the Insurance Company and the 2"d

I i

/ ,/

respondent-owler of the vehicle to deposit the amount arrived at byhim.

¶32

Leamed counsel appearing for the 1,, respondent-applicant relied upon the decision of the Apex C-ourt n Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental fnsurance Co. Ltd1, whe rein it was held as urider:

¶33

"'r,hether a person holding driving licence to drive 'light motor vehicle' is competent to &ive rranspon vehicle or omnibus, rhe gross vehicle weight of which does nor exceed 7,500 lg or a motor car or^(actor or road-roller, the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kgs-; no sepante endorsement on the licence is required to &ive a transpon vehicle of light motor vehicle class."

¶34

In vieqi of the above^judgment, it cannot be held that the

¶35

applicant-1st respondent is not having valid driving licence and thus, Insurance Company is not liable to exonerate from the liabiJ-ity. Leamed counsel appearing for the 1', respondent contended that the 1" respondent is entitled to interest @ l2o/. per annum. In suppon of his contention, he placed reliance on the^judgment of the Apex Court in Saberabibi Yafubbl,ai Shaikh u.

¶36

1 zott tc.t zot I

¶37

¶38

lJational Iutarance Contpatf , in which it was held that respondent

¶39

is entided for interest from the date of accident till realization, as the insurance company alreadydeposited the amount. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the 1', respondent is entitled to interest @ 12o/o per annum from the date of accident till the date of deposit. Insurance Companyis directed to deposit the interest within 30 dap from the date of order and on such deposit, the 1,, respondent-applicant is permitted to withdraw the balance amount along with interest.

¶40

\X/ith the above modification, this Gvii Miscellaneous

¶41

Appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 04.06.20A7 passed in V.CNo.72 of 2006 by the Commissioner for Workmen's C-ompensation and fusistant Commissioner of Labour, Hlderabad. No costs.

¶42

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶43

¶44

2 2014(r) scc 298

¶45

Sd/.B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// {tp

¶46

SECTION OFFICER

¶47

¶48

1 The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour Circle-|, Ranga Reddy District T.Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavan, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad.^(with records)

¶49