Partly allowed

Mohammad Khan v. Mohammad Akbar Ali and Another

Telangana HC14 Sept 2023CMA/1135/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this workmen's compensation appeal, the appellant challenged the compensation amount fixed by the Commissioner as unduly low based on his actual earnings. The High Court upheld the Commissioner's assessment of the principal compensation but modified the order to grant interest at 12% per annum. A separate application seeking condonation of delay was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Modified the Commissioner's order to grant interest at 12% per annum on the compensation from the date of accident till the date of deposit.

Mohammad Khan Vs Mohammad Akbar Ali and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶5

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1135 OF 2011

¶6

Appeal Under Section 30 W.C.Act, against orders modify the order dated 17-6-201'l passed in W.C.No.131/2004 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation -cum- Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mohammad Khan, S/o Lal Khan Ex Driver R/o Banswada Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶9

...APPELLANT/Claimant

¶10

AND

¶11

Mohammad Akbar Ali, S/o not know, age major Lorry Owner Fl/o Star lorry Transport, Bodhan, Nizamabad Dist. A.P.

¶12

The Oriental lnsurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Nampally, Hyderabad. A.P.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

l.A. NO: I OF 2017(CMAMP. NO: 990 oF 20171

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to condone the delay of 227 days in filing the^petition to set aside dismissal of CMA No. 1^{'135/201 'f} against the respondents on 14.07 .2016 and^pass

¶16

l.A NO: 2OF 2017rcMAMP. NO: 991 OF 2017)

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to set aside the dismissal of CMA against the respondents dt: 14.07.2016 for not filing the proof of service in time in CMA No. 113512011 with a liberty to deposit the Batta (SR) 2812212016 by taking fresh notices to the respondents and^pass

¶18

Counsel for the Appellant : SRI.K.M.MAHENDER REDDY

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent : Smt. P.Satya Manjula

¶20

The Court made the following ORDER:

I ) i

i/j

PTHE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.P^RIYADARSINI CML MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.^{1135oF 2011}

¶25

JUDGMENT:

¶26

Dissatisfied with the order dated¹⁷ .06.2011^{in W.C.Case} No. 131 ol 2OO4 NF^{passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's} Compensation and Assistant^{Commissionerof Labour (for short} 'the CommissionerJ at^{Nizamabad,the claimanthas filed the} present appeal.

¶27

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

¶28

The brief facts of the case are that^{the claimant has f-rled} an application under^provisions of^theWorkmcn's Compensation Act, 1923^{(amended as Employees'compbnsation} Act) (for short 'the ActJ claiming compensation^{of Rs.5,O0,0OO/-} for the injuries sustained by him in^{the accident that occurred} on 08.03.1998. It is stated that on the^{fateful day, upon the} instructions of opposite^{party No. 1, employcr, the claimantrvas} proceeding from Kamareddy to Banswada, as^{driver on the lorry} bearing No. AP 12 T 4912, owned by^{opposite party No. 1,} employer, insured with opposite^{partyNo. 2, insurer. At about} 1O:OO a.m., when he reached near Borlam forest, in order^to avert hitting the cattle, which was coming from opposite direction, the claimant applied sudden brakes, due to u,hich, 1tS:^{said1orry turned turtle and fell in the canal.As a result, the}

¶29

¶30

.\IGP.J Ct,lA \o. ! l-15 oj 201l

¶31

claimant sustained fractures and^grievous injuries all^{over the} body. Irnmediately, he was shifted to Government^Hospital, Banswada and later shifted to Government^Hospital, Nizamabad, for better treatnlent. According^{to the claimant, he} is hale and healthy, aged 35^years and^{earning 6,000/-per} month as driver under the employment^{of oppositeparty No. 1.} Due to the said impact, he lost his^{earning capacityand source} of income and thus, prayed to a' ard^{compensationof} Rs.s,o0,000/-.

¶32

Before the Commissioner,^{the opposite party No. 1,} employer, filed counter stating^{that the claimantwasemployed} under him as driver on the^{said lorry and admittedthe fact that} the claimant sustained injuries^{whiie performing his duties.He} further stated that the said lorry^{was insured with opposite} party No. 2 and prayed to dismiss^{the application against him'} On the other hand, the^{oppositeparty No.2, insurer,hled} counter denying the averments^{of the application such as} employee-employer relationship,^{salary,age of the claimantand} manner of accident. He^{further contended that unless and untii} it is proved that the^{deceaseddied duringthe courseof his} employment and^{having valid and effective driving licence, the} Insurance Company^{is not liable to pay the compensation'He} lastly contended that^{claim is excessive and exorbitant and} prayed to dismiss^{the application.}

¶33

¶34

II(; P,J C.lt l \o ll )5 oJ 201I

¶35

¶36

On behalf of the claimant, AWs. I & 2 were examined and trxs.A.1 to A. 10 were marked. trx.A.1 is the certified copy of FIR, Ex.A.2 is the certilied copy of charge sheet, Ex.A.3 is the certified copy of criminal case judgment, Ex.A.4 is the certified copy of injury certificate, Ex.A.S is the photostat copy of driving licence, Ex.A.6 is the photostat copy of certif-rcate of inslrrance, Ex.A.7 is the disability certificate, Exs.A.8 are A.10 are X-ray. On behalf of opposite party Nos. I ar,.d 2, none we re exzrmined but Ex.B. 1, photostat copy of insurance policy, was marked.

¶37

The Commissioner after considering the cvidence on record, both oral and documentary, by determining the wages of claimant as Rs.2,000/- per month, by applying the factor '197.06' for the age of deceased being 35 years, has awarded compensation of Rs.71,584/-. Dissatished with the same, the claimant preferred the present appeal.

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the claimant and iearned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company. Perused the material available on record.

¶39

Learned counsel for the claimant contended that the Commissioner ought to have [-rxed the interest r.lte at l2oh per annum from the date of accident till the date of deposit as per the decision of the Apex Court. He further contendcd that

¶40

4 tlcP.i CtLa No¹¹³⁵ of 201 I

¶41

although the claimant stated that he used to earn Rs.6,0O0/per month under the employment of opposite party No. 1, the Commissioner has erroneousiy taken the income at^RS.2,oOO/- per month, which is very meagre and pra)'ed to enhance^the same by allowing the appeal.

¶42

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel^{for the} Insurance Company sought to sustain the^{impugnedorder of} the Commissioner contending that^considering all^aspects including the natutle of injuries sustained^{by the claimalltand} the period of treatment, the^{Commissionerhas awarded} reasonable comperrsation and the^{same ueedsno interference} by this Court.

¶43

In view of the rival contentions,^{this Court has perused} the material available on record^{and found that consideringthe} evidence and duly taking into^{considerationthe ageand} avocation of the claimant and^{minimum rates of wagesfixed at} relevant point of time^{vide G.O. No. 71, WD, CW & Labour(Lab-} II) dated 16.04.1991, the^{Commissioner has rightly fixed the} income of the claimant at Rs.2,0OO/-^{per month,Ioss of earning} capacity as 307o, applying^{relevantfactor '197.06' as the} claimant was aged about^{35 yearsat the time of the accident,} awarded the total compensation of Rs.71,584/-^{which is} reasonable and needs no interference by this^Court.

¶44

.v(; P.J (',11.4 No ) 13.5 o1 201 I

¶45

¶46

I 1. Horvever, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimant, as per the decisions of the Apex Court in P. Meenaraj us P. Ad.igurusamg, and Shobha and others D. The Chairman, Viothalrao Shinde So;hakari Sakhar Karkhcrna Limited and others2, the rate of interest at l2yo per annum has to be granted. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that rate of interest at 72%o per annum has to be granted from the date of accident till the date of deposir.

¶47

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed by modifying the impugned order passed bv the Commissioner to the extent of granting interest rate at I2,% per annum from the date of accident till the date of deposit. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶49

clos

¶50

t( cin L r ry2rysd/-K. JOINT sRlNlvAsA REGISTRARRAO 20D2( ?P)H)) tBW //TRUE COPY// d.'

¶51

SECTION OFFICER

¶52

To,

¶53