Partly allowed

Paka Swaroopa and 3 Others v. United India Insurance Company Limited and 2 Others

Telangana HC10 Nov 2023CMA/1018/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the family members of a deceased driver against the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation. The Commissioner had dismissed the claim advising filing under the Motor Vehicles Act. This court held the employees' compensation claim was maintainable and awarded a fixed sum with interest.

What did the court decide?

Awarded compensation of Rs. 3,56,980/- payable jointly and severally by respondents; interest at 12% per annum from accident date till deposit.

Paka Swaroopa and 3 Others Vs United India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵³ ]

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY. THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶8

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL^{NO: 1018 OF 2010}

¶9

Appeal Under Section 30 Workmen's^{CompensationAct, 1923'.againstthe} order cjdted 30-09-2023 WC.No.^{'l9t2oo7passd by the Commissioner for} Employee'sri/Vorkmen's Compensation^{and Deputy Commissionerof Labourat} '#aranga!.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Paka Swaroopa Wo. Satyanarayana^{housewifeR/o. Dharamsagar Village} and IVandal Warangal District.

¶12

?- Fat:: i'chana. Dlo. Satlranarayana^{Student R/o.DharamsagarVillageand} i,,:.:,r:,ii V ii ai.rngai Disirict.

¶13

3 Paka Harika. D/o. Satyanarayana^{Student Rl/o.Dharamsagar Villageand} Mandal Warangal District.

¶14

4 PaKa Sathemma, Wo. Durgaiah R/o. Dharamsagar^{Village and Mandal} li.r-'.ia n :i a i Distnct.

¶15

...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶16

AND

¶17

-i Unrted lndia lnsurance Company Limited Represented by its Divisional 1.,; :. :, ier D,vr-<; 1,131 Office.^{H. No.2-8-186,'l st Floor, Mukurampura,} .: :. . | :1:-ta

¶18

2 Unrred lndia insurance Company^{Limited, Represented by its Divisional} It/lanager M.G. Road, Warangal

¶19

3 K^-fhirupathr Reddy^(major), S/o. Raghava Reddy Owner of the Tractor^No. ,ir.1 5 Lr 5?93/A.P i5 K2663 R/o. Kanukulagidda Village, Hr-rzurabad^tvlandal i ',.l.i J:r ,-l

¶20

(Respondent No. 3 is not necessary^party to this^petition)

¶21

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶22

llr.rnse, ir,^irr.j rr,ir;]+ lant : SRl. ALLURI^{RAGHU RAMAAURAVA}

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 &^{2 : SRl.P SATYAMANJULA}

¶24

fhe eourt de!lvered the following: JUDGMENT

¶25

TTIE HONOURABLE SMT.^{JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSIM}

¶26

CTVIL MISCELLIINEOUS^{APPEALNo. 1O18OF2O1O}

¶27

JUDGMENT:

¶28

Aggrieved by the order^{dated 30.09.2009in W.C.Case} No. 19 of 2OO7^passed by^{the Commissionerfor Workmen's} Compensation and Deputy Commissioner^of Labour, Warangal, the applicants^{have hled the presentappeal.}

¶29

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

¶30

The brief facts of lhe case^are that^{the applicants have} hled an application under the^{provisions ofEmployees'} Compensation Act, 1923^{(for short 'the ActJclaiming} compensation of^Rs.4,OO,OOO I^{-tor the death ofonePaka} Satyanarayana, husband^{of applicant No. 1, fatherof applicant} Nos. 2 and 3, son of applicant^{No. 4 (hereinafter referred as 'the} deceased') in the accident^{that occurredon 20.O2.2O05,alleging} that the deceased^w'as employed^{by the oppositeparty No. 1 as} driver on tractor and^traile r^{bearingNos- AP 15 U 5293 and AP} 15 K 2663, which was insured^{r'"'ith opposite partyNos' 2 and 3.} It is stated that on the latelul day,^{on the instructionsof} opposite party No. 1, cmployer, the^{deceased was proceedingas} driver on the tractor and trailer bearing^{Nos AP 15 U 5293 and}

¶31

¶32

MGP,J cMA-lOr8 20lo

¶33

AP 15 K 2663, owned by opposite part5r No. 1, employer, insured with opposite pargz Nos. 2 and 3 towards Devadula pump house in the outskirts of Elkurthy village. When he reached near Elkurthy cross road, the said tractor and trailer turned turtle. As a result, the deceased succumbed to the grievous injuries on the spot. Based on the complaint, the police, Subedari Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 21 of 20o5' According to the appricants, the deceased was earning Rs.4,5O0/- per month as driver under the employment of opposite party No. 1, employer. Due to the accident, they lost their only breadwinner and love and alfection. Hence, the applicants have claimed compensation of Rs.4,0O,0OO/_ against the opposite part5r Nos. 1 to 3, who are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensalion.

¶34

Before the Commissioner, the opposite party No. I remaincd ex parte and whereas the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 together hled countcr denying the averments of the application such as employee-employer relationship, salary, age of the deceascd and manner oI accident. He further contended that unlcss and until it is proved that the deceased died during the course of his employment and having valid and effective driving Iicence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the

¶35

MGP,J cMA_t018 20lo

¶36

¶37

compensation. He lastly contended that the claim is excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the application.

¶38

On behalf of the applicants, PWs. I and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A. l0 were marked. Ex.A. 1 is the certihed copy of FIR, Ex.A.2 is the certified copy of linal report, Ex.A.3 is the inquest report, Ex.A.4 is the PME report, EX.A.S is the certified copy of MVI report, Ex.A.6 is the extract of driving licence, Ex.A.7 is the photostat copy of insurance policy, Exs.A.8 and A.9 are the copy of registration certificates and Ex.A.1O is the dependents certificate. On behatf of opposite part5r Nos. 2 and 3, none was examined and no document was marked.

¶39

The Commissioner after considering the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, by advising the applicants to file a claim for compensation against the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 before the claims tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, has dismissed the applicar ion.

¶40

Aggrieved by the dismissal order by the Commissioner, the applicants have hled the present appeal.

¶41

Heard both sides and perused the record

¶42

¶43

MGP,J cMA-10i8_2010

¶44

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that though the applicants proved their case by adducing Exs.A.l to A.1O and examining PWs. 1 and 2, the Commissioner has erroneously advised the applicants to file a claim for compensation before the tribunal under Motor Vehicles Act and dismissed the application. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal by awarding reasonable compensation.

¶45

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, Insurance Companies, sought to sustain the impugned order of the Commissioner contending that considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the Comrnissioner has rightly dismissed the application ald the same needs no interference bv this Court.

¶46

In view of the rival contentions, this Court perused the entire record and found that the applicant No. l, wife of the deceased, was examined herself as pW. 1 . In her chief examination, she reiterated the averments of application and deposed that the deceased, in order to discharge his duties as driver under the employmenl of opposite party No. 1, was proceeding in the said rractor and trailer. In support of her claim, she got cxamined one Kayita Thirupati Reddy as pW. 2. PW.2, in his cross examination, he denied the suggestion that

MGP,J cMA rolS 2010

I i !

the deceased was not^{driving the tractor and trailer' Though} PWs. l and 2^{were cross examined at length nothingwas} elicited to discredit^{their statements.It is pertinent to note that} Ex.A.2, final report, also^{discloses that the deceasedwas} working as driver on the^{said tractor and trailer and on} 2O.O2.2OO5, the deceased^{went to his houseon his said tractor} and trailer for lunch along^{with witnessesLWs' lO and 13 and} after having lunch, the^{witnesses leftDharmasagarand} proceeded to work spot i.e.,^{Devadula pumphouse' Italso} reveals that when^{the deceased reached Elkurthy cross road,} the deceased drove the^{said tractor and trailer in a rashand} negligent manner at high^{speed, due to which, he lost control} over the said tractor^{and trailer which turned turtle and as a} result, the deceased succumbed^{to the grievous head injuries on} the spot. Further,^{Ex.A.S, MVI report,discloses that the said} tractor and trailer of^{oppositeparty No' l,employer,was} involved in the accident^{that occurrecl on 20 02 2OO5 in the} outskirts of Elkurthy^{village and the deceaseddied inthe} alleged accident. Moreover, Ex.A.7 ,^{insurance policy,clearly} discloses that the said tractor and trailer^{was insuredvide} policy bearing No. O508Ol/3ll04 l10168^{valid from O3'O1 2005} to O2.O 1.2OO6. Except^{the oral statcments,the opposite party} Nos.2 and 3,^{Insurancecompanies,have not adduced any}

¶51

MGP,J cMA_lo1a_2010

¶52

¶53

documentar5r evidence to prove that the deceased did not die during and in ttre course of the employment. Hence, in view of the evidence available on record and the deceased is an employee rendering his services to the opposite party No. I under. employee-employer relationship, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicants are entitled for the compensation under the Act

¶54

In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, according to the applicants, the deceased was aged 42 yeats and earning wages of Rs.4,5O0/- per month as driver under the emplo5rment of opposite party No. 1, employer. However, considering the prevailing minimum rat-es of wages at the relevant point of time, this Court is inclined to hx the income of the deceased at Rs.4,OOO/ per month- In view of the Schedule IV of the Act, the relevant factor for the age of the deceased being 42 years old is '178.49'. Thus, apptying the relevant factor '178.49" the total compensation u.orks out to Rs.3,56,980/@s.a,OOO/-^{x 50/ loo x t78 49).}

¶55

Insofar as interest is concerned, as per the decision of Apex Court in P. Meenaraj u. P. Adigurusanngt and Shobha

¶56

t Civil Appeat No 2O9 of 20'22. decided on 6 Januan, 2022

¶57

MGP,J cMA r o 1a_2010

¶58

¶59

and others v. The Chairman, Viothalrao Shinde Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Lirnited aud others2, the applicants are entitled for interest at l2%o per annum on the compensation amount from the date of accident till the date of deposit. Hence, this Court is inclined to award interest at 12ok per annum on the compensation amount from the date of accident till the date of deposit.

¶60

14 . Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed by awarding tJre compensation of Rs.3,56,98O/- to be payable by the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severallyThe compensation amount shall carry interest at l2o/o per annum from the date of accident till the date of deposit. On such deposit, the applicants are entitled to withdraw the amount without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶61

Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed

2 2-atz L3) ABRt'

//TRUE^COPY//

sD/- M^{v rAJAYf;fS,t?[i[:}

¶66

¶67

SECTION^OFFICER

¶68

To, ' ^ il"fisstoner for Employee'sA/Vorkmen^; .Ctln^{oensattonand Deputy} 1 -^{: r ' s:o,.eloi r-roor, !i'r[]L"s' 6# P"-"'^ It"{} I^{(.nc ,ic} to^{SRIALLURIHncnu invr'n AURAVAAovocate[opuc]} 3 o;; cc^{io snr P SATYA NIANJULA'Advocate [oPUCl} 4 T'*c CD CoPies

.. ) l'1 g

HIGH COURT

DATED:1011112023

JUDGMENT

A 1 .'., -'-;i'jt,
t I i-''

¶74

CMA.No.1018 of 2010

¶75

P"h ALLO'{VING Tl-lE CMA Gy4't -Qn - -Atf'

Paka Swaroopa and 3 Others v. United India Insurance Company Limited and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paka Swaroopa and 3 Others v. United India Insurance Company Limited and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Haseena Begum and 3 Others Vs Kumba Kondaiah and Another

Mohd. Salma Vs the Union of India

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs Pallikonda Shetty (Died)

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Ramavath Chandu Naik and 2 Others

State Bank of India Vs Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewels

National Insurance Company Limited, Secunderabad. Vs O. Manemma and 3 Others