Dismissed

The United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nirmala Lakshmi and 6 Ors.

Telangana HC14 Nov 2023CMA/1329/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against an order awarding compensation to the next of kin of a deceased driver, the court held that factual disputes regarding employment relationship and wages are not substantial questions of law. Distinguishing issues based on facts rather than law, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Commissioner's award.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed; no order as to costs.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶5

clvlL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1329 OF 20't1

¶6

Appeal Under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, against the Order dated 17-12-2009 made in W.C No.3/2007 on the file of the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Khammam.

¶7

Between:

¶8

The Divisional Manager. United lndia lnsurance Company Ltd, O/o. Kothagudem, Khammam District.

¶9

...Appella nUOppos ite Party No.3

¶10

AND

¶11

Nirmala Lakshmi, Wo.late Radha Krishna R/o.Kukkunoor [V] and [t/], Khammam District.

¶12

Nirmala Gopi, S/o.late Radha Krishna, Age-18 years, R/o.Kukkunoor [V] and [M],^{KhammamDistrict.}

¶13

Nirmala Sai Babu, Sio-late Radha Krishna, Age-17 years, R/o.Kukkunoor [V] and [Ml, Khammam District

¶14

Nirmala Nagamma, Dio.late Radha Krishna, Age-16 years, R/o.Kukkunoor [Vl and [M], Khammam District

¶15

(Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are minor Represented by their guardian and natural mother i.e.- Respondent No. 1)

¶16

Nirmala Saraswathi, W/o.late Gopala Krishna R/o.Kukkunoor [V] and [M], Khammam District.

¶17

Secretary, Mis.G,P.C.M Society O/o.Branch Office Kukkonoor [V] and [M], Khammam District.

¶18

The Transport Officer, Girl1ana Co-operative Corporatron Limited O/o.Visakhapatnam.

¶19

...RespondenUOpposite party Nos.1 &2

¶20

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2010(CMA MP. NO: 1743 OF 2010)

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the^{circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Courtmay be pleased to} grant stay of all further proceedings including disbursement of compensation deposited in W.C.No. O3|2OO7 dated 17 -12-2009 on the file of^{the Commissioner} for the Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of^Labour, Khammam.

¶22

Counsel for the Appellant: Smt. V. DURGA

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6&7: Sri.^{Y. KISHOREBABY}

¶24

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶25

THE HONOURAB LE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI CTVIL MISCELLAN EOUS APPEAL No, 1329 of 2OLL

¶26

JUDGMENT:

¶27

Aggrieved by the order dated 17.12.2OOg in W.C.Case No. 3 of 2OOT (Fatal) passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Khammam, the opposite part5r No. 3/lnsurance Company has hled the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶28

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

¶29

The brief facts of the case are that the applicants who are wi[e, children and mother of Late Niramala Radha Krishna (hereinafter referred as^,the deceased) have filed an application under the provisions of Employees, Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') claiming compensation ot Rs.5,OO,OOO/_ for the death of the deceased in the accident that occllrred on 09.I2.2OO5. It is stated that on the fatelut day, upon instructions of opposite party No. 1, employer, the deceased was proceeding as driver on the lorry bearing No. Ap 20 T 6976 frorn Kondapalli to Kukkunoor for unloading the Rice. When the said lorry reached near the outskirts of Kondappalli vi[age, the

¶30

MGP,J cMA 1329 201 I

¶31

¶32

deceased lost control over the^{vehicle, duc to which, the said} lorry turned turtle. As a result,^{the deceasedsuccumbed to the} grievous injury on the spot. Based^{on the complaint,the Police,} Kukkunoor Police Station, registered^{a case in Crime No' 78 of} 2OO5 under Sections 337 and^{3Oa(A) of IPC. Accordingto the} applicants, the deceased^{was aged about 4O years and usedto} earn wages of Rs.4,O60/-^{per month as driver underthe} employment o[ opposite^{party Nos. Iand, 2and used to} contribute his entirc earnings^{for thc welfareof the family'Due} to the sudden demise of thc^{deccased,the applicants lost their} only bread winner bcsides love^{and affection' Hence, the} applicants havc filed^{the appticationclaiming compensationof} Rs.S,OO,OOO/ - against the^{opposite part5r Nos. 1 to 3, who are} jointly and severally liabte to pay the compensation'

¶33

Before the Commissioner,^{the oppositeparty Nos' I and 2} filed counter admitting that the^{deceasedwas employedunder} them as driver on the said lorry and^{died whileperforming his} duties. He further stated that^{the said lorry was insured with} opposite party No.3. Hence,^{prayed to dismiss the application} against them. On the other hand,^{the opposite party No' 3,} appellant herein, filed counter denying^{the averments of the} application such as employee-employer^{relationship,salary, age}

¶34

MCP,J cMA-1329 201 t

¶35

¶36

o[ [he 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 lastly contended that claim is excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the application.

¶37

On behalf of the applicants, PWs. I aod 2 were examined and Exs.A. 1 to A.7 were marked. Ex.A. I is the certilied copy of FIR, Ex.A.2 is the certihed copy of inquest report, Ex.A.3 is the certified copy of final report, Ex.A.4 is the certified copy of PME report, Ex.A.S is the certified copy o[ MVI report, Ex.A.6 is thc legal notice issued by the opposite party Nos. I to 3 and Ex.A.7 is the acknowledgements. On behalf of opposite party No. 3, none was examined, however, Ex.B. l, insurance policy filed by opposite party No. 3, was marked.

¶38

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 '189.56' for the age of deceased being 38 years, has awarded compensation of Rs.3,72,580/-.

¶39

MGP,J cMA t329 20tr

¶40

¶41

7 . Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Commissioner, the opposite party No. 3/lnsurance Company has filed the prcsent appeal to set aside the impugned order.

¶42

Heard both sides and perused the record

¶43

The main contention of learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party No. 3 / Insurance 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 employee relationship between the deceased and opposite parry No. 2 and prayed to dismiss the application against them.

¶44

On the other hand, learned counsel for thc applicants sought to sustain the impugne d orcier 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

1 l. In view of the rival contentions, this Court has perused the entire record and found that the applicant No. l was examined as PW. l and reiterated the averments of the

¶46

MGP,J cMA_r329 201 I

¶47

¶48

application in her chief examination. She deposed that her deceased husband was working as driver under the employment of opposite party 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 PW. 2, cleaner of the said lorry and eye witness to the accident. PW. 2, in his cross examination, deposed that he is eye witness to the accident and the deceased died during and in the course of his employment with opposite parEy No. 1. Though PWs. I and 2 were cross examined at length, nothing adverse was elicited to discredit their evidence.

¶49

A perusal o[ Exs.A. i to A.6 makes it abundantly clear that the deceased succumbcd to the grievous injuries in the accident that occurred on O9.12.2OO5 near the outskirts of Kondapalli village while discharging his duties as driver under the employment of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. It is pertinent to note that the opposite party Nos. I and 2, in their counter, admitted the fact that the deceased was employed under them as driver on the said lorry and died while performing his duties. It is also admitted that the said lorry was insured vide policy bearing No. 0517OO/31/05102/OOOO|L27 valid from 25.O5.2OO5 to 24.05.2006. Moreover, except stating that there

¶50

MGP,J CMA I329 2OI I

¶51

¶52

is no employee-employer relationship between the deceased and opposite partSr Nos. I and 2, the opposite party No. 3 has not evinced any cogent evidence to prove the same. Therefore, the opposite party No. 3 cannot escape its liability on the ground that there is no employee-employer relationship between the deceased and opposite party Nos. I and 2 and is liable to indemnify the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, employer and owner of the said lorry.

¶53

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. 3 failed to establish that there are crrors apparent on the face of the record. The Honourable Supreme Court in North

¶54

East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujathal held

¶55

as under:

¶56

"9. At the outsel, we mag take note oI the fact, being a settled principle, that the questton as to whether the enq)logee m.et uith qn accident, u.thetLer the accident oeurred durtng the course of emplogment, uhether it drose out ol an emplogment, how and in uhat manner the accident occuned, who utas negligent in causttg the accident, uhether there existed any relationship of emplogee and emploger, what uas the age and monthly salary of the emplogee, how mang are the dependents of the deceased. emplogee, the extent of disabilitg cqused to the emplogee due to injuries suffered in an accident,

'lzoteyrrsccsr+

MGP,J cMA 1329 201 r

uthether therc uas any insurance coueraqe obtctined bA the emploAer to couer the ulcidet etc. erc sonte of the nnterial issues rzfticlr^q.rise for tltc just decision of tlle Cornmissioner tn a claim petilion when an emplogee suffers ang bodily injury or dies durtng the course of his emptoAment and he/ his LRs suefs/ his emploAer to ctaim compensation under the Act.

¶63

1O. The aforementioned questions are essentiallg the questions of fact artd therefore, theA are required to be proued uith the aid of euidence. Once tley are proued either wag, the findings recorded thereon are regard.ed. as the lndings offacl.

¶64

1 1. The appeal prodded und.er Sectton 30 of the Act to tte High Coutt against the ordet of the Commissioner lies onlg againsl the specifrc orders set out in clouses (a) to (e) oJ Section 30 of the Act with a further rtder contained in tE frrst^{proutso to the sectaon lltat the appeal} must^inuoltE substantial questions of law-

¶65

In other words, the appeal prouided under Sectrbn 3O of tte Act lo the High Court against the ord.er of th.e Commissioner is nol like o regular lirst appeol akin to Section 96 o[ the Code of Ciuil Procedure, l9O8 which can be h.eard. both on facls and law. The appellate jurisdiction of the High Courl to dectde tlrc appeal ts Lyrartned onlA to ex.amine the substantial questrons of lau aising in tle c4se-"

¶66

ln view of the principle laid down in the above said authority, it is clear that thc abovc contention of the appellant/ insurance company is not based on a question of law but it is purely a question of [act, which cannot be raised before this Court as per Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

¶67

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Commissioner, after considering all the aspects, has rightly came to the conclusion in awarding compensation to the applicants. Thus, this Court is not

¶68

MGP,J cMA t329 20n

¶69

¶70

inclined to interlere with the hndings of the Commissioner and

¶71

the Civil Miscellaneous Appcal is also tiable to be dismisscd.

¶72

Accordingly, both the Civit Miscellaneous Appeal IS

¶73

dismissed. There shall bc no order as to costs.

¶74

Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶75

closed.

¶76

Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT R GISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION FFICER

To,

The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy^Commissioner of Labour, Khammam

¶82

2 One CC to St{r.V. DURGA, Advocate {OPUCI

¶83

3 One CC to SRI Y. KISHORE BABY, Advocate IOPUC]

¶84

4 Two CD Copies

PSR

(

HIGH COURT

DATED:1411112023

JUDGEMNT

.'....r
\ c
t<br>+ I
a u . ru I
-)
,+
i.
n- D E-qerrrc

¶92

CMA.No.1329 ot 2011

¶93

APPEAL IS DISMISSED

¶94

@Y'Pw g.c ash<sup>L-+

The United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nirmala Lakshmi and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nirmala Lakshmi and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

Union of India Vs C Ravinder

The Union of India Vs Pinninti Jayapal Reddy and 2 Others