Dismissed

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Vadde Ram Reddy and Another

Telangana HC23 Mar 2022CMA/769/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by New India Assurance Company challenging the workmen's compensation award. The Court upheld the 80% disability assessment and ordered interest payment from the date of accident.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed except to an extent of interest; appellant directed to pay 12% interest per annum from date of accident.

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF IUARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶5

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 769 OF 2013

¶6

Appeal Under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act aggrieved by the order dated 29-08-2007 in W.C. No. 115 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour , Nalgonda.

¶7

Betweeni:

¶8

tre rueJ lndia Assurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Sanghamithra - Bank Complexl Prakasham Bazar, Nalgonda Town and District, rep. by its Branch Manager;

¶9

...APPELLANT/ Respondent No.2

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Vadde Ram Reddy S/o. Linga Reddy, Occ: Driver of DCM Van, Bearing No. AP12T 6845 Rl/o. Mirulonigudem, H/o. Appajipet Village of Nalgonda Mandal Nalgonda District. . . .. Respondent / Applicant

¶12

¶13

2 Sri P. Venkata Reddy, S/o. Sathi Reddy, Occ: Business R/o. H.No, 16-1 1- 74115, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. (Owner of DCI/ Van bearing No. AP12T 6845 ) (Appeal against R -2 dismissed for default vide Court Order dated 15-09-201 1)

¶14

...RESPONDENT/ Respondent No. 1

¶15

CMAMP l NO: 390 OF 2008

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, the High Court may be pleased stay all further proceedings including execution of the order in WC.No. 1 15 of 2006 dated 29-8-2007 on the file of the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda, pending disposal of the CMA before this Hon'ble Court

¶17

Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. P SATYA MANJULA

¶18

Counsel for Respondent No.1 : SRI M. MADHAVA REDDY

¶19

The Court delivered the following Judgment :

¶20

TI:,E HON'BLE JUSTICE P. SREE SII'DH.A CTV ]L MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.769^()F 2013

¶21

JUDGMENT:

¶22

Challer ging the order dt.29.Oa.2OO7 passed in W.C. Nb.115 of 2006 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensatir n and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda, s:eking to set aside the said order, this Civil Miscellaneot sr Appeal is filed by the New India Assurance Company Lt, 1,, Secunderabadf 2".d opposite party

¶23

The fa :ts of the case in a nutshell are that the 1 "t respondent^. ras employed by 2"a respondent herein as a driver on DCM Vrn bearing No.AP-12-T-6845. On 0104.2006 at about 3.00 ).m., the applicant while proceecling on the said lorry from H zderabad to Guntur, he met with an accident, due to which, t e received grievous multiple injuries all over his body. After the accident, he was shifted to Government Head Quarters^{Hc spital,Nalgondaand thereafterhe was referred to} Osmania G:neral Hospital, Hyderabad: The applicant fiied W.C.No.115 :,f 2006 seeking compensation of Rs.4,O0,0OO/-.

¶24

') PSS,J CMA No.769 of 2013

¶25

After adducing evidence and marking exhibits, the learned Assistant Commissioner granted an amount of Rs.3,16,157 /- towards compensation. Aggrieved by the said order, the New India Assurance Company Lt-d., l2"a opposite party preferred this Appeal.

¶26

Heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellant/2"d opposite party and learned counsel appea-ring for the respondent/applicant

¶27

Learned counsei for the appellantl2"a opposite party contended that the learned Commissioner grossly erred in taking the disability at 8Ook, which is more than what is contained in Schedule-I of W.C.Act.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for l"t respondent/applicant contended that the Assistant Commissioner has rightly passed the order and it needs no interference by this Court.

¶29

A perusal of the order passed by the Assistalt Commissioner of Labour shows that l"t respondent was a driver on DCM bearing No.AP-12-T-6845 employed by the !"a respondent herein and he met with an accident on 01.04.2006 and sustained multiple fractures and grevious injuries all over his body and the 1"t respondent filed the petition for

¶30

PSS,J CMA \o.769 of 2013

¶31

¶32

I I

¶33

compensatior.. Further, the l"t respondent examined^PW.2- Civil Surgeor L (Ortho.), Government Head Quarters Hospitai, Na-lgonda an1 he stated that on 06.06.2002 the applicant appeared bef rre the Medical Board and he suffered amputation on right side ;.nd accordingly he assessed the disability at 80%. He further s rrted that the applicant is unable to walk, run, climb up an< down the stairs etc., and he is not fit for driver. He issued Ex A-4-Disability Certificate

¶34

B. This Cr urt is of the considered view that the Assistant Commissione r, after considering the evidence on record, had rightly taker the loss of earning capacity at 80% as the applicant war driver of DCM van at the time of acciclent and he cannot discl arge his duties as driver, after thr: accident. Therefore, it : Leeds no interference

¶35

9 . The As listant Commissioner directed both .L^st and 2"d opposite part os to deposit the compensation amount rvithin 30 days from th: date of receipt of the copy of the order and no interest is grz nted by the Assistant Commissioner. As per the decision of t re Supreme Court in the case of SABERABIBI YAKUBBHAI SHAIKH V/s NATIONAL INSURANCE

¶36

4 PSS,J CMA No.769 of 2013

¶37

COMPANYI, the 1"t respondent/applicant is entitled for interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident to the date of realisation. In this case, the amount was already deposited by the Insurance Company an{ thus, the applicant is entitled for interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till the date of deposit. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount within a period of one month from the date of this order, and on such deposit, the applicant 1S permitted to withdraw the same.

¶38

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed except to an extent of interest. There sha1l be no order as to costs.

¶39

I 1. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶40

l l 2014 (2) SCC 298

¶41

Sd/.B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT-REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ct) SECTION OFFICER

¶42

¶43

Tt e Gommissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant
Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda. (with record)
2. Ode CC to M/s. P SATYA MANJULA, Advocate [OPUC]
3. Oile I CC to SRl. M. MADHAVA REDDY, Advocate IOPUC]
4. Two I CD Copies . \ --o-
5. One i Spare CoPY A';ff;z-
I

¶44

HIGH COURT

¶45

DAT D:2310312022

¶46

I cc 1 $E s-,-A 14:
o:)
!r, 1fl l,lAY 2022
<br>O.c

¶47

Judg ent

¶48

CMA. o.769 <tr 2013

¶49

DISMISSING THE CM \