Dismissed

United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,Rep.by Sr.Div Manager, Hyd v. E.Vallamma, Mahabubnagar, Presently R/O. Hyd and Another

Telangana HC8 Sept 2023CMA/1243/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal against compensation awarded to a work-injured employee was dismissed. The High Court held that the appellate jurisdiction is confined to substantial questions of law and facts were not reviewable. The court also ruled the appeal fails because the appellant failed to deposit the award amount with the Commissioner, violating the statutory requirement for registration.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1243 of 2011 was dismissed on the ground that the appeal could not be registered due to non-deposit of the compensation amount by the appellant.

United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,Rep.by… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s3 I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND ANO TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶6

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1243 OF 2011

¶7

Appeal under Section 30 Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, against the Order dated 06.10.2009 in W.C.46 of 20Ol passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour - lV, Hyderabad. Between:

¶8

United lndia lnsurance CO.LTD., Rep. by its Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office-Xl, Tirumal Towers, Malakpet, Hyderabad.

¶9

...APPELLANT/2"d OPPOSITE PARTY

¶10

AND

¶11

E.Vallamma, Wo. Pentaiah Ex.Labourer Ryo.Thandra Village, Kalwakakurthy Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, Presently residing at Charminar, Hyderabad.

¶12

K.Jaipal Reddy, S/o.K.Ramakista Reddy, Rl/o-Thandra Village, Kalwakakurthy Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶13

(R-2 dismissed vide Court lOrder dated 14.07.2016)

¶14

...RESPONDENT/1.1 OPPOSITE PARry

¶15

l.A NO: 2 OF 2010(CMAMP. NO: 30 OF 2010)

¶16

Petition under Section^'151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased grant stay of operation of the decree and order in WC No.46/2007 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-lV, at Hyderabad, dated 06.1 0.2009.

¶17

Counsel for the Appellant :SRl. M. SATISH REDDY

¶18

Counsel forthe Respondents :SRl C. H. INDRASENA REDDY

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G,PRIYADARSINI CwIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1243 OF 2O11

¶21

JUDGMENT:

¶22

Aggrier.ed by the order dated 06.10.2009 in W.C.Carse No.46 of 2OO7 passed by the Commissioner for &orkmcn's Compcnsation and Assistant Cornmissioner of I-abour IV, Hydcrabacl, thc opposite party No. 2/lnsurance Com;any l-ras filcd tl-rc prcsent appcal

¶23

F-or thc sake of convcnicnce, hereinafter, the partres will be referred as pcr thcir array before the Commissioner'

¶24

The briel facts of the case are that the applicant hzrs [i]ed Wr>rkmcn's an appliczrtior-r under the provisions of Compensation Act, 1923 (amendcd as Employee s' compensation Act) (for shorl 'the Act') claiming compensation of Rs.5,{)O,OOO/lor thc injuries sustained by her in thc'accident that occurred on 08.O9.2O07. It is stated that on the fateful day, upon instructions of opposite parLy No. 1, employer, the applicant attending his duties as labourcr on the trator/trailer bcaring No. AP 22M 1369 11367, owncd by opposite party No. l, employer, insurccl .rviLI-r opposite party No. 2, insurer and at about 1O:O0 a.m., r,r,hen the said tractor/ trailer reached near 'l'handra village oulskirts, the drivcr of the said tracto r-/ trailcr

¶25

2 {(;|'] I ctlA I 24.1 l0I i

¶26

drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manncr at high spee.J, due to which, the applicant fell doi,vn from Lhe trailcr arrd thc tyre of tlte tractor/trailer ran ovcr her. As a rosult, shc sustained grievous fractures on her lctt sitlc ribs and leJ-t arm bones. Immediately, she was shifted to NIMS hospiral, Hyderabad. Based on the complaint, the police. Verdancia poricc Station, registered a case in Crime No. 77 of 2OO7 . Accortling io the applicant, she was halc and healthy, aged about 35 years, earning w,ages of Rs.4,500/- per rnonth a,d batLa of Rs.l50/ per day as Iabourer under the employment of opposite p:rrt-vNo. 1, emplol,er and used to contribute hcr cndrc earnings for the welfare of the family. Due to the accident, shc suffererl permanent disability and lost her earning capacity. Hence, the: applicant has filed the application claiming cortprjnsafron of Rs.5,00,OO0/- against the opposite party Nos. t and 2, who are jointl.y and severally liable to pay the compensation.

¶27

Before the Commissioner, the opposite party No. 1 remained ex palte and whereas, the opposite party No. 2, appellant herein, fired counter denying the averments of the application such as employee_employer relationship, salary, age of the applicant and manner of accident. He further contended [hat unless and until it is proved that the applicant sustained

¶28

MGP,.J CMr\ I2 13 2Ol I

¶29

)

¶30

injuries dr-rring^{the course of her ernploymentand the driver of} the said tractor/^{trailer having valid and effectivedriving Iicence,} the Insurancc^{Company is not liable to pay the compensation'} He lastly^{conlcrldedthat claim is excessiveand exorbitant and} prayed to dismiss^{the application.}

¶31

On behalf of the applicant,^{AWs. Iand 2 were examined} and Exs.A.^{1 to A. 15 r,r'ere marked.Ex.A.1 is the certified copy of} FIR, Ex.A.2 is^{rhe certifiedcopy of complaint and crime details} form, Ex.A.3^{is the dischargecard of NIMS hospital,Exs'A4} and Ex.A.s^{arc [he OP chits and morning clinic chits of NIMS} hospital,^{Ex.A.6 is the bunch of medical reports, Ex.A.7 is the} X-ray report,^{Ex.A.8 is the medicalreport, Ex.A 9 is the medical} bill, Ex.A.^{1O is the disability certificate,Ex.A.1 1 is the photostat} copy ol^{RC of the tractor, Ex.A.1'2is the photostat cop)' of RC of} the trailer,^{Ex.A.13 is the photostat copyof driving licenceof the} driver, Ex.A.^{14 is the photostatcopy of insurance policy and} Ex.A.15 is thc^{X-ray films. On behalf of oppositeparty No' 2,} RW- 1^r,r,as examined^{and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked. Ex'B' 1 is} the authorization^{letter issuedto RW. 1 by opposite party No'2,} Ex.B.2 is the^{copyof insurance policy and Ex.B.3 is the RC} ext racl^.

¶32

MGP,.I C i{A ll+3 20r I

¶33

¶34

The Commissioner after considering the evidence or-r record, both oral arrd documentary, by determining the wages of applicant as Rs.3,298/- per month, loss of earning capacity as 5Oo/,', by applying [he factor '194.64' for the age of applicant bcing 36 ycars, stamp and advocate fee of Rs.B86/-, has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,93,463/-.

¶35

7 . Aggricved by the compensation awarded bv thc Commission<:r, the opposite party No.2/lnsurance Company has filed thc present zrppeal to set aside the impugned order.

¶36

Heard both sides and perused the record

¶37

Lcarned Standing Counsel for the opposite part), No.2/[nsurance Company contended that there \/as no employee-employer relationship between the applicant and thc opposite party No. I . He further contended that since no additional prcmium was paid to cover the risk of the applicant, who was ernployed as labourer, by the opposite parfy No. 1, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the oppositc party No. l and prayed to dismiss the application against opposite party No. 2

¶38

On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant sought to sustain the impugned order of the Commissioner

¶39

MGP,J cMA 1243 201 1

¶40

¶41

colrtcnding Lhat. considering the agL' and avocal_ior.1 of thc applicant, thc Commissioner has au,ardcd rcasonable compensalion and the samc needs no interlcrencc bv this Co ur rt.

¶42

1 1. In vier,, of thc rival contcntions, this Court has perusecl the cntire record and lound that thc applicant h imself was examincd zrs AW. i :rnd rcitcrated the averments of thc application in her chiel exantrnation. In sultport ol' her claim, she got examined AW.2, orthopedic surgeon. AW. 2, in his chiel' examination, cleposcd rhat he cxamined thc applican t on 14.O4.2OOn clrnicalll, and r.adiologically and iound lhat rhe applicant sustained lracture neck of left scapula unitcd with wasting of shoulder muscle and gross restriction ol' shoulder joint movemer)ts, rib fracture ol right side from brl, to 9rh with non-union o[ 7rh rib u.ith dcformit), of chest ar-rd rib fracture o[ left side lrom 2nd and 3,d - ur-rired. He further deposecl that ]re assessed the disability of thc applic:rnt as 3O7o, which is permanent ancl partial and loss of earning capacity as 7 Oo/o as the applicant could not perfonn hcr dutics as labourer as earlier with the samc cfficicncy and issucd disabilily ccrtific;rtc undcr trx.A. 10. Though AWs. 1 ancl 2 werc cross cxamined at tength nothing wers eljcited to discredit their statements.

¶43

¶44

\l(; P..i (.i!11'. ll-' -10^I

¶45

a;i

¶46

i') 'l i:c rnain crtnLcn':ic't:^{ol lirt: lcarnedlitirrlcling. Counsclior-} thr: Insr,irl,iitcc^{L'o11,panv is thai though th'c. it'tsLtt'ertcc l.rolicv} undi:r^{i:)>:11.2ls sL'bsislli;!l tli; c:i r'ltctlerrr:oI thr: iti:cideritil-ri':} polic)'^{rlc.,:, 11oi cov3r the risi: r-rl- labourer' als no adrliiiortal} ano i ir us, \Vil S paid b.Y thc^oPPr;site P::^{rt-v No'1} i)io^InlLtlll 2 :r, rtcrt^{cni.ili{lalt o pzr'} ;illy(--or1-'} pcil szlI lo tl} 1.,1'-,glosii,.^{pr r It-t' i'ic} irrsLrDDoti'.lIsitcircontcntion'theo1:positeptrril'No? cx,j.lrrtnecl^{the ir Assistant lvianagei as R\'t ' 'a'ho deposed rhat} v.,:tS insured^{rvhichr,rr,'as valid froni} thr.^{sa idt;a^ctor,i irzrilr:r} I .Ol.2OC7^{'.o 10 0 i2'JU3 and it' does rlot cover the risk o[} !abourcr^{as nrl adclitional preuriuttt was Iiaiclb'"' tl'rt' cpp'rr'rt'-'} l)arty^{l.Jo. 1. ln lris cross-e:xamil-tation 'RW' 1 admitted that} Its.25i^{- towards adclitional premium'}

¶47

13.^{In Oriental l'xsurance Company Limited v'Meena} Variyat^{and othersl,the Honourable Supreme Courtobserved} as under:

¶48

"UninJtuenced^{bgautLtoities'tue findno'} dilfcultg^{in understond'ingthis prouisionas one} prouiding that^{the poLicgnust insure an owner} against^{ortg tiabilitgkt a tllird patlll caused by or} aising^{out of the use of the uehicle in a public place'} and ogoinst^{deathor bodilg injury to ang passenger of} a public^{seruiceuehicle caused' bg or ar[sing out of the}

¶49

-- h^{| (2007)5SCC428}

¶50

¶51

M()t),.1 Ci\l:' 12.+3 201 I

¶52

¶53

use ol' uehicLe in a public ploce.^'fhe prouiso clorift:s Lhctt the poLicA sholl not be required to couer art empLoqee of the insurecl n respecL of boditll itjuru or deoth aising out of and in the course of his emplolJment. Then, an excepLion is^prouided to the lasr foregotng^{to the effect that the policy must couera} tiabilitu aising und.er the Worknrcn's Compensalion Act, 1923 ln respect ofthe death or bodllg injury to an emploqee who is engaged in driuirg the uehicLe or utho serres as a conductor in a public seruice uehicLe or an emplogee tuho trouels in the uehicle of the entploqer corrying goods {it is a goods carriage. Sectit>n 14911), which casts an obLigation on an isurer tct sotisfg att autard, aLso speaks onlq of award in respect of such tiabilitg as is required to be couerecl bg a policg unrler clause (b) of subsection⁽¹⁾ of Section 147 (being tt tiebititg couered by the tem-ts of the pohcg). This prouision cannot therefore be used to enlarge lhe liabilitg if it does not exist in terms of Section 147 of the Act. 1 4. The object of the lnsi.stence on insurantce under CLrapter XI of the Act thus seems to be to computsonlg couer the ltability reLating to their person or properties of third parlies and in respect of emplogees of the insured employer, the liabitity that mag arise under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in respect of the dnuer, the conductor and the one carried in a goods uehicle carrying goods."

¶54

In vieu, of the abor.e discussion and considering the principle laid down in the above said authorities anrl since the applicant is not a gratuitous passenger and as the :rpplicant is

¶55

¶56

¶57

MGP,.,I c{A 1243 201 i

¶58

.tt

¶59

an emplolree renderil-lg his services to the opposrte party No. 1 under cmployee-employcr rclationship, the contentron of rhe lcarned Standing Counscl lor [he opposite party No. 2 that the policy does not cover the risk of labourer in view of non_ payment of additionar premium, is unsustainable. Therefore, the opposite party No. 2 is liable to indemnily the opposite part5r No. 1, employer i.c., o,,vner of the said tractor/ trailer.

¶60

Though scvcral grounds were raised by the learned Standing Counscl for the appellant/insurance company, it appears that most of such grounds are based on question of fact but not on ques[ion of lau,, 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 East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujathaz held as under:

¶61

"9. At the outset, ue mag take note of the fact be,ing. a setlled principtc. thit th. A;";i";'"r;";; unetner the empLoAee met with an aciident, uhetlter the accident occuned duing ,,n"^- "r"J"'"Zf empLogment, u.thether it arose oit o1 on e^ptoumeni, hou.t and in uhat manner tn """ialii "irolJli," Jriro was negligent in causing the accid"ent, tuhether' tieil ex.t-sted ong relationship of employee and. emolouer. u)nat wos the age and monthlg salaru^'o[ "the .,7!!?a""; hou' mang are the alp."a."i" i1 iiJ a.eceoscd emplogee, the extent of disabititg cauied to ,_hi :fOb.y"" due to injuries sttffered in in o""iaZri, u)netner there uos ong insurance couerage obtained

'(2olg) tr scc su

MCP ] c\t.\ 1243 201 I

¶66

bg the entployer lo couer lhe incide.nr etc. Lue sonle ai Llte nLutcriaL issues arhich aise for the just dcclsion oi the Comrntssi.oner in a claim petitiort u,hen ar, employee su,ffers ang bod y injury or clies drr^.ng the course of his emplogment cuttj he/ his lR.s -sur:/s:7 hls ernploger lo claim compensalion rttrclL,r the Act.

¶67

The aforementionecl que.stiorr.s qre esserttially the questtons oJ'fact ancl thereJbre, they are requirecl to be proued tuith the oid of euidence. Once lhetl are proued etther wag, tlte Jinclirtgs recorded thereon are reqarcLed as the .finclings of faci.

¶68

Lhe . Acl I 1. The to the appeal prouidr:cl High Coufl ctga tttrtlar tst tllc Sec.L{,:n orLlct of .3O LtrcoJ. Com.ntlssioner ltes only against tlte speciftc ordcis sel out in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 30 of tirc A(:r Luitlt u further^{ntler contained} in the Jir:1 py61,i5s trt 1l1p sectiotl tlLat the uppeaL rnust iruolue subsL..nttc:l questions of la ut.

¶69

I2. ln otlter uorcls, Lha ctppectl ltrorticlecl uncler Section 30 of the Act to the High (.oLtr1 (rqeinsL tlte order of tLLe Commtssione, is not tike a reguktr fr:;t appeal akin to Section 96 of the Coae of biutt Procedure, 1908 tuhich can be heard both o; facts and. la1 1'he appellate junsd.iction c{ the High^'Courr to decide the appeal is confined onhl to exrtlmine tlrc ,. substantnl quest[ons of lau aising ii tlrc case

¶70

In view of the principle laid dorvn in the above said authority, it is clear that the abovc contention of the appellan t/ insurance companv is not bascd on a qucslion of raw but it is purely a question o[ ract, *,hich cannot be raised before this Court as per Section 30 of the Workmen,s Compensation Act

¶71

Under these circumsLance s, this Cour.t is 01 the considered opinior-r that the Commissioner, after considering all \ \

¶72

:fi(;i. i (.r1,,\ I '1r .loli

¶73

ir)

¶74

il.rr: a:;J.rcc:ts,^{hils rightl'r ('ame to the coirclr-isiort inau'ardirlp:,} cornpensation^{to the al)plici.rllt.-[ iius, lhis L':(]urtis nor lrlclirreci} to iutgrf(jrc^{,"r'ith lhc llrtrlinqsoi lirt; Llr>mmissioncl}

¶75

18.^{At this.Junciurc,lcat'ned r:cunsel ibr the, applicant|aiseci} an oltjccl-ion^{alrouL tlic ;r:r lrrl.llnit])ilitr'of tirc appeal irscl{. iie} {urther^{r-'otrtendcdthai ;rccorclit;Etc' the provisoSe ction :}0(l ) oi} [-,)ri-rpli',i,'ccs'^{C]ontF,ct-rsa[iorl Ac'', l92lJ no appeal by' an crnplo-yer} under clar.ise^{(a) shali lic rrnless thc rnemorandurn of appeal} accompanied^{bl' a certiirr:i.rte bi' tht' C)ortntissioncrt-o the el'lirci} Lhat thrr^{zrppellatrt has clcpositcd vriLh hinr thc arnoulltpayable} under Order.

¶76

According^{to Sectiorl 30 ol Iirnployees'Compensation Act,} 1923 there^{is a beLr of registrationoI appeal in case of failure of} appellants^{for depositingamountordered.For convenientsake} Section^{3O of urnplovccs CompcrtsationAcL, 1923 is extracted} hereundcr:

¶77

Section 30 of^{Emplogees' Compensation} Ac|¹⁹²³ : Appeals.-^{(1) An appeal shall lie to the} High^Court from^the .folLotuingl^{ordr:rs of aCommissioner,} namelg:" 1a)^{an order autardingas compensation} a lump sum^{uhetller bg wag of redemptionof a} halfmonthlg^{pogntent or otherwiseor dtsallowing} a claim in [uLL or^{in port} for a lump^{sum; (aa) an} order au.tard.ing^{interest or penaltgunder section} 4A; (b) an order^{refusingto allou-.r redemption} of a holfmonthly^{pagment;(c) an order prouiding} for the

¶78

\4C Ir,J c,1A tl.+3 20l l

¶79

¶80

¶81

Ll{stnbution of conTpensattotl antong tl.,e clependcLnts of a deceased^[empLoyeej ()r disallotuing ang claim of a persotl alleging hitnsclf to be such dependant; (d) an order alloi.uirLg or dsallotuing ctng claun for tLrc aftLoutTt o. en inclernnity unrler tl'te proutslorzs o/.sub sectittrt i2) Of sectbn ) 2; or le) en order reluxng to re(jisier (t rnemorand.unt of agreetnenL or registering lte setrLt) or prouiding for the regisLration <;J'Lle sarne .suitjec.t to conditions: Prouided that no appeal sholl ti<: ogainst ang order unless a substantial question of law is inuolued in Lhe appeut. ancl in the ca', ol ct,, order ather than an order such as is reJbrreci io Lr clause (b), unless the cLmount in dispute ir., tlt,, appeuL is nol les-s than^rten thousand rupees or suclt h[qher arnoLlnL es ille CertlrcLL GoL.tarrtnterLl nray, bg nottfication in the OfJiciat Ga:ze e, speciJil : Prouirled further that no appeal shatt lie h a,a1 case tn u,hich the parties haue aqreed to abide bt1 the decision of the Commissioner, or in tulticLt tlu: order of the Commissioner qiues eJfed to ert .tqreement come to bg the parl[cs: Prouicl.erT lurther ilull no ctppeal bg an entploqer untler c[cutse (u) shalL lie unless the ntemorttndun oJ' appeut is accompanied bg a certtficate by the Commissbner to the eLfed thot the appellont has deposited tuitlt him the cLmount payable und_er the order appeaLerl against. (2) The period of limitatlon for an appeal under this section shall be sixtu days. (.3) The proulsrcns of section 5 of the Limitatiotl Act, 1963 (36 of 1963)1, shall be applicable to oppeLTls und.er thl.s seclion.

¶82

In view of proviso referred above, no appcal sl.rall lie in case ol lailure of the aggricved part),. The record show,s rhat the appcllant/ I n surance Company failed Lo deposit thc compensation amount with interesl within thc stipula tc.l timc, thcrebl, the appeal shall not be registered as sLlch the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal also liable to be dismissod on [hirt ground also.

¶83

.lal I' ,l CMA I 24.-l .lt;1 l

¶84

¶85

2lt. Accordingl',,. rhe Civil IvIisr:elt:incrrus l;rpcal is ciismissed.

¶86

'iirere sha[i be no orcier:]s t().osts

¶87

Penciing Misce llartercir-s applications; il any, shall sLanrl

¶88

closed.

¶89