Dismissed

The United India Insurance Company Limited v. Ssmt.D.Laxmi and 3 Ors.

Telangana HC14 Nov 2023CMA/1004/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the Insurance Company challenged the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner's award. The Court held that appellant's contentions raised questions of fact, not law, and lacking evidentiary error, the appeal was dismissed with no interference.

What did the court decide?

Appeal against the Commissioner's award in Workmen's Compensation Case No. 1 of 2005 is dismissed; no order as to costs.

The United India Insurance Company Limited… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s31

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶6

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:1004OF 2011

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 30 of W.C.Act against the Judgment and decree^dated 18.01.2007 made in W.C.No.^'1 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour,^{Patancheru at} Ashoknagar, R.C.Puram (M), Medak District.

¶8

Between:

¶9

The Divisional Manager, United lndia lnsurance Company Limited.

¶10

...AppellanUOpposite Party-2

¶11

AND

¶12

Smt.D.Laxmi, Wo.late Sri D.Narsimha, Age: 20^{years,Occ: Housewife} R/o.Bollaram Village, RC Puram Mandal, Medak District.

¶13

Sri D.llaiah, Age: 50^years, Occ: Nil R/o.Bollaram^{Village, RC PuramMandal,} Medak District.

¶14

Smt.D.Tulasamma, Wo.llaiah Age:45^years, Occ:^{Nil R/o.BollaramVillage,} RC Puram Mandal, Medak District.

¶15

Ramachandra Reddy, Owner of Tanker No.AHH^{1467R/o.H.No.15-1-99'} Feelkhana j"Li;'"ff. . Hvderabad. 6t,a- 6wd.ar d.lr s\ r( zoro CD|AA. trr'-

¶16

...Respondents/Applicants

¶17

l.A. NO:2OF 2O07(GMAMP. NO: 1599 OF 2007)

¶18

Petition uMer Section^'151 of CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Cou( maybe pleased stay} all further^proceedings of the order dated^{18.'1.2007 passed in WCNo.1/2005on} the file of the Commissioner for^{Workmen's Compensation andAssistant} Commissioner of Labour, Patanclrcru, at^{Ashoknagar,RC Puram {Mandal, Medak} District

¶19

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri S.A.V. Ratnam

¶20

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Sri palle Sriharinath

¶21

Counsel for Respondent No.4 : None appeared

¶22

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶23

(

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI CwIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1OO4 of 2O11

¶25

JUDGMENT:

¶26

. Aggrieved by the order dated L8.OL.2OO7 in W.C.Case No. 1 of 2005 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Patancheru, Medak District, the opposite party No. 2/Insurance Company has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶27

For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the Commissioner.

¶28

The brief facts of the case are that the applicants who are wife and parents of Late D.Narsimha (hereinafter referred as 'the deceased) have Iiled an application under the provisions of Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') claiming compensation of Rs.6,O0,OO O / - for the death of the deceased in the accident that occurred on 09/10.06.2005. It is stated that on the intervening night of 09 / L0.06.2C05, upon instructions of opposite party No. 1, employer, the deceased was proceeding as driver on the water tanker bearing No. AHH 1467 towards Taras Company at Bollaram village. When the said

¶29

¶30

MGP,J cMA 1004_201 1

¶31

water tank reached near the Srivani Enclave colony, Ameenpur village, the deceased lost contror over the vehicle, due to which, the said water tanker turned turtle. As a result, the deceased succumbed to the grievous injury on the spot. Based on the complaint, the police, R.C.puram police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 198 of 2005 under Section 3O4(A) of IpC. According to the applicants, the deceased was aged about 25 years and used to earn wages of Rs.5,0O0/_ per month as driver under the employment of opposite party No. I and used to contribute his entire earnings for the welfare of the family. Due to the sudden demise of the deceased, the applicants lost their only bread winner besides love and affection. Hence, the applicants have filed the application claiming compensation of Rs.6,0O,O0O/- against the opposite party Nos. I and 2, who are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

¶32

Before the Commissioner, the opposite party No. I filed counter stating that the said water tanker was insured with opposite part5r No' 2 and the policy is subsisting on the date of the accident. Hence, prayed to dismiss the application against him. On the other hand, the opposite party No.2, appellant herein, filed counter denying the averments of the application

¶33

MGP,J cMA loo4_2011

¶34

¶35

such as employee-employer relationship, salary, age of the deceased and manner of accident. He further contended that unless and until it is proved that the deceased died during the course of his employment and was having valid and effective driving licence, the Insurance Company is not liable to^pay the compensation. He Iastly contended that claim is excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the application.

¶36

On behalf of the applicants, AWs. I and 2 were examined and Exs.A. 1 to A.3 were marked. Ex.A.1 is the certihed copy of FIR, Ex.A.2 is the certihed copy of inquest report and Ex.A.3 is the photostat copy of postmortem examination report. On behalf of opposite part5r No. 2, RW. I was examined and Ex.B. i, insurance policy issued in favour of opposite parry No. 1 in respect of water tanker bearing No. AHFI 7467 , was marked.

¶37

The Commissioner after considering the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, by determining the wages of deceased as Rs.3,931 / - per month, by applying the factor '216.91' for the age of deceased being 25 years, has awarded compensation of Rs.4,27,69¹ / -.

¶38

^! \

¶39

¶40

MGP,J cMA 1004 201 I

¶41

Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Commissioner, the opposite party No. 2/lnsurance Company has filed the present appeal to set aside the impugned order.

¶42

8 Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶43

The main contention of learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party No. 2/lnsurance Company is that the Commissioner erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.3,931/- per month without any proof and that there was no employer and emproyee rerationship between the deceased and opposite party No. 1and prayed to dismiss the application against them.

¶44

On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicants sought to sustain the impugned order of the commissioner contending that considering all aspects,including the age and avocation of the deceased, the Commissioner has awarded reasonable compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.

¶45

In view of the rival contentions, this Court has perused the entire record and found that the applicant No. 1 was \ exalnined as AW. I and reiterated the averments of the

¶46

MCP,J cMA 1004_2011

¶47

¶48

application in her chief examination. She deposed that her deceased husband was wor*ing as driver under the employment of opposite pargr No. 1, employer and succumbed to the grievous injuries during and in the course of his employment with opposite party No. 1. In support of her claim, she got examined AW . 2, cleaner of the said water tanker and eye witness to the accident. AW. 2, in his chief examination, deposed that he is eye witness to the accident and the deceased died while discharging his duties as driver under the employment with opposite party No. 1. Though AWs. 1 and 2 were cross examined at length, nothing adverse was elicited to discredit their evidence.

¶49

On behalf of opposite party No.2, its administrative ofhcer was examined as RW. 1. RW. 1, in his chief examination, deposed that the said water tanker was insured vide policy valid frorn 26.O2.20O5 to 25.02.2006 and was in force on the date of accident. Further, in his cross examination, RW. 1 admitted that as per the criminal records, the deceased was the driver by profession. Moreover, except stating that there is no employeeemployer relationship between the deceased and opposite party No. 1, the opposite party No. 2 has not evinced any cogent evidence to prove the same. Therefore, the opposite party No. 2

¶50

6 MGP,J cMA_loo4 2011

¶51

cannot escape its liability on the ground that there is no employee-employer relationship between the deceased and opposite party No. 1 and is liable to indemnify the opposite party No. 1, employer i.e., owner of the said lorry.

¶52

Though several grounds were raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/insurance . company, it appears that most of such grounds are based on question of fact but not on question of law, more particularly, when the opposite party No. 2 failed to establish that there are errors apparent on the face of the record. The Honourable Supreme Court in North

¶53

East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujathal held

¶54

as under:

¶55

"9. At the outset, ue mag take note of the fact, being a settled. pinciple, that the question a, io -hetne, ti" emplogee met uith an accid.ent, rohetler the accid.ent occurred. duing the aurse of emplogment, uhetler it arose out of an emplogment, hout and in uhat manner the accident occured, uho was negl@ent_ in causing the accident, uheth.er th.ere existed ang relationsfip of emplogee and emploger, uhat utas the age and. mnntig salary of the emploAee, hou mang are tle d_ependents ;f th.e deceased emplogee, the ertent of disabilifg caused. io th: emplogee due to injuries suffered in in accident, uhether there uas anA insurance couerage obtained. bg the emploger to auer th.e incident etc. are sonle of the maleial issues which aise for the just decision of the Commissioner in a claim petttion when an emplogee suffers ang bodilg Tlu.lC^{ol dies during the aurse of his imptogmentani} he/ his LRs suefs,, hjs emploger io clain - co-mpensation under the Act. thE _ questions 10. The of fact aforementioned and therefore, they questions are are reqtired essentiallgto bZ

'lzoteytrsccsr+

MGP,J cMA 1004 2011

I I

proued uith -the. aid of evidence. Once theg are proued 1rtu:^{y3V, tte fndings record.ed,for"i"} *i r"oZri#'i the f.ndings of faa.

¶62

! f : TF appeal provided. under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against tf,e orae, oSti Cimriisil;;ff; onlA against the specifi.c order. se;tio;so"ji;;;;;;;'"#;;:':;:'Z:;i;fl ;",!:Iil frrst substctntial^prouiso que-stions to the section of lau,t. inot , "pp"i'"":r"tiri# 12. In other uords, the oppeal prouided under Section 3o of the Act to the itish c.tri-"s"i;iiff"r;;Z| tlrc Commissioner is rnt titee a regutar frst ,pp"ii rliir- i!" Section 96 of the Code of Ciuit pricedu'i,-iil5";;r;;;';;; of lhe b: I.":!. High both hurt on 6acts to decide and. tte taut. appeal rn "pi"ti"i. i.s confinEd ii.i,li"ii"onlu to .#f,". the substantial queio.s .t t"i-irt"iig"i7t;;

¶63

14 ' In view of the principre raid down in the above said authority, it is clear that the above contendon of the appellant/insurance company is not based on a question of law but it is purely a question of fact, which cannot be raised before this Court as per Section 30 of the Workmen,s Compensation Act.

¶64

Under these circumstances, this. Court is of the considered opinion that the Commissioner, after considering aI ttre aspects, has rightly came to the conclusion in awarding compensation to the applica,ts. Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere w.ith tl.e frndings of the Commissioner and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is also liable to be dismissed.

¶65

MGP,J cMA_loo4-2011

¶66

¶67

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.

¶68

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶69

Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶70

closed.

¶71

//TRUE COPY//

¶72

Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAOJOINT REGISTRARt\ SECTION OFFICER

¶73

To,

¶74

1 . The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Patancheru al Ashoknagar, R.C.Puram^(M), Medak District. (with records, if any)

¶75