Partly allowed

Ramesh Chandra Shivanjiya , Ramesh v. Kewal Singh and Ano

Telangana HC16 Mar 2022CMA/832/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against the Commissioner's compensatory award, the High Court enhanced compensation by reinstating a 60% disability assessment reduced to 40% below and directed the insurer to pay the balance with 12% interest from the accident date.

What did the court decide?

Compensation recalculated based on 60% disability; balance amount and interest at 12% per annum from accident date directed to be deposited.

Ramesh Chandra Shivanjiya , Ramesh Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF I\4ARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶5

C.M.A. NO: 832 o F 2010

¶6

Appeal under section 30 of workmen's compensation Act, against the order in w c.No.51 of 2003 dated '15/06/2010 on the fire of the commissioner workmen,s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour at Nizamabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ramesh chandra shivaniiva @^Ramesh, s/o -c"pJp"iltrra1ru,gireddi6"i, lvradhava Rao Shivanjiya, Ex- Driver of rorry bearing No n/p 09x'2zb'6 ruo. iviru Nr.zi,,uiiio District.

¶9

AND

¶10

...APPL|CANT

¶11

'l . Sri Kewal Singh, S/o. Nira.nr.an Singh, Lorry bearing No.Mp 09K 2766, R/o.Brahmanpur, lndore, ( I,4ad hva-piaaesi ) (R1 dismissed vide Court Order dated 1gl}4t16\

¶12

The oriental lnsurance co. Ltd., Br. office 20, snehnagar, Main Road rndore, (MP)

¶13

(appear against R1 is dismissed vide court o:TlfLqg l?ggr.?lE)"o*r,.,

¶14

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

¶15

For the Respondents : NONE APPEARED

¶16

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶17

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE^{P. SREE SUDHA} CIYIL MISCELLAN^{EOUS APPEALNO. 832 0F 2010}

¶18

JUDGM.ENT:

¶19

Challenging the order^{dated i5-06-2010passed in W'C'} No.5l of 2OO3 by the^{CommissionerforWorkmen's} Compensation and Deputy^{CommissionerofLabour,} Nizamabad, seeking enhancement^{of the compensation,this} Civil Mjscellaneous^{Appeal is filed by the claimant'}

¶20

It is the case of the^{appeliant/ claimant that he was} employed by the 1"t^{respondentas a driveron Lorry bearingNo'} MP O9K 2766. On 08-03-2002,^{the appellant/claimant ''as} proceeding from Hyderabad to^{Ghaziabadin Uttar Prasad} loaded with Asian Paints^{and when the 1orry reachedthe} outskirts of Yellareddy^{at 124} l2^{culvert ofNizambad District} at7.OO a.m., a buffalo^{emerged on the road and the applicant} applied sudden brakes^{and lost control over the lorry on} account of which it^{turnedturtle culminating into the accident} resulting in fracture^{and multiplegrievous and fracture injuries} to his right collar bone,^{hands,legs, neck, chestand stomach} and the head, so also on other^{parts of the body,thereby the} applicant sustained^{permanent disablement.}

¶21

) PSS,J CMA No.832 of 201O

¶22

The appellant/ claimant filed application under Section 22 of Workmen's Compensation Act against opposite parties for grant of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. After considering evidence and documents marked on behalf of the claimant, the learned Commissioner granted an amount of Rs.1,75,453/- towards compensation by fastening the liability jointly and severally on respondents 1 and 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶23

Heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellant. No representation for R2.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the Commissioner cannot reduce the u''ages and aiso the disability should be assessed at 100% and further claimed interest (tr, 12ak per annum from the date of accident ti1l date SABERABIBI of realization as per citation reported in YAKUBBHAI SHAIKH VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY].

¶25

A perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner shou,s that in the counter filed by the owner it is stated that

¶26

20 r.1 (l) scc lglt

¶27

PSS,J -) CMA No.832 oi 2O¹⁰

¶28

the applicant was^{working as a driver and he u'as paylng} Rs.6,OO0/- per month^{towards salaryand batta of Rs'3.20/-} per day, but the sa1ary^{certificateis not filed and the owner is} not examined regarding^{incomeof the applicant} Thus' considering the^{natureofwork being performedbythe} applicant, the^{Commissionerhastaken hissalaryas} Rs.3,354/- per month^{for the purposeof calculation of the} compensation as^{per G.O.Ms. No. 30, L'E'T & F(Lab-11)} Department,^{d,aled, 27 -O7 -2OOO issuedby the Governmentof} Andhra Pradesh,^{whichneeds no interference'}

¶29

Regarding the disability,^{theapplicantexaminedthe} doctor as A.W.2 and^{he assessed thepermanent partial} disability of the applicant^{as 60% and also issued Ex'A'4} disability certificate.^{He also assessedthe loss of earning} capacity of the applicant^{as 607o. Hou'ever, the Commissioner} reduced the same to^{4Ookwithout assigninganv reasons'} Therefore, the loss of^{earning capacityshall bearrivedat} 600/o instead of 4Oak. Therefore,^{thecalculation ofthe} compensation sha11 be^{as follows :}

¶30

Rs"3354X60X60X216.91 - 2,61,906 100 100

¶31

¶32

PSS,J CMA No.832 of 2O 10

¶33

7 . In the absence of any evidence regarding the income of the applicant/appellant, the Commissioner has rightly taken the wages as per the Minimum wages Act and the same needs no interference. Accordingry, the commissioner directed the Insurance Company as well as the owner of the vehicle i.e. l"t respondent to deposit compensation amount within 3O days from the date of receipt of the order, faiiing which, it carries interest @r2% p.a. But, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of SABERABIBI YAKUBBHAJ SHAIKH V/s NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY2, thc APPIiCANI/APPCIIANI is entitled for interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident to the date of reaiisation. In this case, the Insurance company has already deposited the amount and thus, the applicant is entitled to interest (E l2o/oper annum from the date of accident till the date of such deposit. Therefore, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance amount along with interest within a period of one month from the date of this order, and on such deposit, the applicant/appetlant is entitled to withdraw the same.

¶34

B. Accordingly, the Civii Miscellaneous Appeai is allowed in part. There shatl be no order as to costs.

¶35

':ot+ 1:y scc 2ss

¶36

PSS,J CMA No.832 of 201 O

¶37

¶38

Og. As a sequel,^pending mlscellaneous applic.ltions,^{if any,}

¶39

sha11 st,and closed.

¶40