Dismissed

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Secunderabad v. S Anantha Reddy, Hyderabad and Anr.

Telangana HC4 Sept 2023CMA/138/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed by an insurance company to set aside a workmen's compensation order. The Court held that disputes over employee status, premium payments, and factual matters do not constitute substantial questions of law. Consequently, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to interfere, and the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 138 of 2015 was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵³¹

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE FOURTH^{DAYOF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SMTJUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI}

¶6

CIVIL MISCELLA^{NEOUS APPEAL NO: '138OF 2015}

¶7

AppealUnderSection30ofWorkmen'sCompensationActagainslorders aat"O'iS"iiZOtS^{passeO-in W.C. f.lo. 15 of 2013'on the file of the Courtof} c;;;G6"; for'Emptoyees^{compensationand Deputy Commissionerof} Labour - l, HYderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

TheNewlndiaAssurancecoLtd.,secunderabad,Repre_sentedbyitsDeputy Manager,ThirdPartyMotorClaimsCell,H.No.5-2-17512,2,,"Floor,Madanmohan Building, R.P. Road,^{Secunderabad.}

¶10

...APPellanUOPPosite^{PartY No'2}

¶11

AND

¶12

1 S Anantha Reddy,^{S/o Late S. MuthyamReddy, Occ helper' R/o H'No} 1 53/1¹ , Vivekananda^{Nagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad}

¶13

.. -ResPondenUAPPlicant

¶14

2 M/s Raja Rock^{Drillers, Represented by G Nitish Reddy' PJo H'No 7-75'} Madhurapuri colony,^{Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad - 500035'}

¶15

...ResPondents/ResPondent^No'1

¶16

Counsel for the^{Appellant:Sri T RAMULU}

¶17

Counsel forthe^{Respondent No.1: Sri P RAMAKRISHNA REDDY} Counsel for the^{Respondent No.2: KOTASUBBARAO}

¶18

The Court delivered^{the following:JUDGMENT}

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI CIVIL MISCELLANETOUS APPEAL No. 138 OF 2015 JUDGMENT:

¶20

Aggrieved by the order dated 23.01.2015 in W.C.Case No. I 5 of 2013 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Dcputy Commissioner of Labour-[, l{vdcrabad, the oppositc party No. 2/[nsurance Company has fitcd the presenL appcal.

¶21

Iror lhe sakc o[ convcnie nce, hereinafter, the parties will bc r<'[crrcd as pcr th('ir arrat'belolc the C<lmmissioner

¶22

The brief lacts o[ the case are that the applicant has filed .I/orkmen's an application under the provisions of Cornpensation Act, 1923 (amcndcd as Employees' cornpcnsation Act) (for short 'the Act') claiming comp€nsation of Rs.8,00,00O/for the injuries sus[ained by him in the accident thaL occurred on 08.12.2O12- It is statcd that on the fateful day, upon instructions ol oppositc party No. I, cmployer, the applicant thc applicant attencling his duties as helper on the bore rvell rig lorry bearing No. AP 29 BII 5868, owned by opposite party No. I , cmploy<:r, insurcd u,ith opposite party No. 2, insurer and rvhile the applicant was removing the stonc which u,as kcpt undcr the tyrcs ol tl-rc sarrl lorry, the driver of the saicl l<>rry

¶23

N1(i P..l ( t\4.\ I :i3 2! I il

¶24

drovc the vehiclc il, a high^{specd without gtvrneali-v} precautiona.l signals to thc applicant,^{d,uc ltr r'l'hich,the tyres of} the said lorry ran over the^{rrght h.ando[ the applicant' As a} result, the appiicant sustained^{crush injur;cs. Immecliatell',he} u,as shifted trr Omni Hospital,^{Kothallet,Hydcrahaci. He spent} Rs.1,00.O00/- tor,r,ards his^{mr:dica! trca tlncnt. Based on the} complainr-, the Police^{Statiorr Char,clanagar, C-vberabad,} registercrl a case in Orinrt: i!o.^{669,:tf 2Ol2' undcr Secl-ion} '138^o[ IPC. Accorcling to tttc^ar 1-r 1t^{I i i::tI t i} .^{l'r' ,r'i'r:; lr'ii''.irtC ircilit]t1'. agr:d} abor-rt⁴ i-, )'cars, car;lirig^{l<:-.8.0t)(r,/} ;lt^{tl::ritliit and biltt't ol} Rs. 100/^- per day as hcl;rcr^{un('lertllc crnl)loyrncntof oppctsite} party No. i, ertplr.lycr. I)ttt'^{(o lhczlt:< idr''ut, hesul'lcled} pclrrlattctlt disetltilit.v^',,1..1r,r-, llts^, irtlt;i':i'^{1 irt)jll it-</sup> '^llcn*;.tLtt: applicant. has filed thc applrr:atic,n^{clairnillgcornpctrsation crf} Rs.8,00,OOO/- agzrinst Lhc opposite^{partytJos.1 and 2, who are} jointly and severally tiablc to pa-v thc comocnsation.}

¶25

Beforc the Cornmissioner, Lhe^{op1:ositepariJ* No1,} owner/employer, fited coLlnter stating^{t-hat the applicant was} employed under him as helper on the said^{lcrrry and admitted} the fact that the applicant sustained injttlics^{u'hileperforrning} his duties. He further stated that the said lorry^{was insured} with opposite parcy No. 2 and prayed to dismiss the application

¶26

MGP,J cMA 138 20l5

¶27

¶28

against him. On the other hand, the opposite party No.2, appellant herein, filed counter denying the averments of the application such as employee-employer relationship, salary, age of the applicant and manner of accident. He further contended tha[ unless and until it is proved that the applicant sustained injuries during the course of his employment and the driver of the said lorry having valid and effective driving licence, the lnsurancc Company is not liable to pay the compensation. He lastly contcncled thar claim is cxcessive and exorbitant and prayed to clismiss the application.

¶29

On behalf of the applicant, AWs. I to 3 were examined and [ixs.A. I rr> A. l2 u'erc marked. Exs.A. I and A.2 are the certified copics of FIR and charge sheet, Ex.A.3 is the certified copy o[ medico legal case record, Ex.A.4 is the discharge summary issued by Omni I{ospital, Hyderabad, Ex.A.S is the bunch of mcdical bills issued by Omni Hospital, Hyderabad, Ex.A.6 is the disability certificate issued by Dr.K.Suresh Kumar, Chairman, District Meciical Board, Nalgonda, Ex.A.7 is the photographs of the injured applicant, Ex.A.g is the photostat copy of driving licence, Dx.A.9 is rhe photostat copy of RC of the vehicle , Ex.A. I O is photostat copy o[ insurance policy, Ex.A.l I is salary ccrtificare issued bv rhc opposite party No. I and Ex.A. 12

¶30

IIG P"' cN4,<sup>I 33^{2Ci ::}

¶31

¶32

is the disal:ilit-v^{certificatr':issued byl rr'G SubhashRi:c"} Orthopaeciic^{Surgeon' Crn bchallof c'pposilr: party No 2' RW'1} rvascxarcilre.fan<iEx.B.1,t-;.JeCl)l]vo[insurancepolicy,w.as markecl. On^{bchalf olthr: Comtnissiotrt:r'iix X l} '^{Frnal bill} issuecl by^{Omni Hospital,Ilyclerabadand Ex X'2' photostatcoy} of iclctrtiry^{card of AV'/} '^{3, wr:rc rnarked'}

¶33

Tht: Commissioner^{aflcr cor.:s i<lr: r;'nf' thcevidcnceo']} recot.cl,^{l;otlr ora,|and d<rcunrcrlti.rry,lr1, celr..t.rnilring[he w:rgesrlf} appticant^{as Rs.4,823.75 pcr ntonih' [oss ol r:ttrt-rirlg c:t';iacityas} 10O%, bjr^{applying thc [actcr'L(r(] 4'l' Iot tltc ilq(' ol' irlitlr(xl} trcing 45^{yca.rs, mcdica.l(:xl)clLr'ltlur{:lt Rs; 9l '(-)'1 l7;lnd stamp} ancl advocat-e^{tee ot Its.2,66'l/, has au'attlcrl cc;tnpcrlsa(lonol} P.s.5,85,OO7 /-

¶34

Aggrieved^{b1' thecompcnsatiott au'ardecl bythc} Comrnissiouer,^{the oppositepart)' No'2/Insurar-rcc Company has} t-rled thc^{presentaPp'calto sct asidr''thei r'' pugrrcd order'}

¶35

8 Heard both^{sidcs and perused thc rccorci}

¶36

g. Lcarne<l Standing^{Counselfort.hc opposit-e party} No.2/lnsurance^{Conrpanlcontend('(lthzrt there\ Iasno} employee-cmployer^{relatiorrshipas tircappli(rant andthe} opposite party^{No. 1. Hc furthr:r' contcncledlhaL since no}

¶37

MGP,J cMA-138_20t 5

¶38

¶39

additional premium was paid to cover the risk of the applicant, who was employed as helper, by the opposite party No. 1, the insurance company is not liable to indemni$, the opposite party No. I and prayed to dismiss the application against opposite party No. 2.

¶40

I O. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant sought to sustain the impugned order of the Commissioner contending that considering the age and avocation of the injured, the Commissioner has awarded reasonable compensation and lhe same needs no interference by this Court.

¶41

1 1. In view o[ thc rival contentions, this Court has perused the entire record and found that the applicant himself was examined as AW. I and reiterated the averments of the application in his chief examination. [n support of his claim, he got examined AW.2, orthopedic surgeon and AW.3, billing executive. AW. 2, orthopedic surgeon, deposed that he examined the applicant on O3.O4.2O 14 and lound that the applicant sustained crush injury of right forearm with traumatic amputation with comminutcd lracture dislocation involving distal radius and ulna with dislocaticn of wrist joint. He further deposed that he assessed the disability of the applicant as @7o

¶42

M^('i P,J CMA I38 20 15

¶43

¶44

and loss of earning capacity^{as1OO9i, as the applicant could not} perform any work as earlier^{with his right upper limb and} issued disability certificate under^{Ex.A. 12. AW' 3,billing} executive, deposed that the^{applicant admitted as inpatient in} Omni Hospital, Kothapet,^{from 08.12.20 12 to 24 12'2012'He} further deposed that the^{applicant pzricl Rs9 1 ,941 / - towarC's} medical Lrill and thr.; discharg,e^{bill i:ssrrcdb," hospital is nrarkcC} einder Ex.A.S. Thcugh AWs. l^{to 3 u'cre cross examined at} leirgth notl'rin g was elicited^{tt., d j scre'l it l'!IL-ir :i l-ir to nler11 s'}

¶45

12.^'lhe main contention^{of the learnectSlctndingCourlsclfor} the lnsurzrnce Cotnpany is that^{thoughttrt-- insurance policy} undcr [I;<.I].1 is subsisting^{as on 1-hc rlatc i''r t'hcer':t:irlcrtl-,t he} policy does not cover the risk^{o[. ht:lper.:rs-- no :rdtiiLional} premiurn was paid by the^{oppositcpart-v-No' Iandthr rs'} opposite party No. 2 is^{not eniitled to pay an)' compensatiorl'} In support of such contention,^{the opposite pariy No' 2} examined their Assistant Manager^{as RW. I, whodeposed that} the said Iorry was^{insurrcd vidc policy} No' 6132003112O1OOOOO818^{valid from 21-O6 20 12 to 20 06'2013} and it does not cover the^{risk ofhelper as no additional} premium was paid by the opposite^{party No.I In hcr cross-}

¶46

MCP,J cMA 138 20t5

¶47

¶48

examination, the RW. I admitted that Rs. I ,608 / - was paid towards TP premium.

¶49

1 I . In Oriental Iusurance Company Limited v. Meena Variyal and othersl, thc [{onourable Supreme Court observed as under:

¶50

"Uninfluenced. by authorities, ute ftnd no

¶51

dtfficultll in understandtnq this prouision as one proutding thol the polrcq rnust irLsure an otaner against any liabilitg to a third partg caused. bg or artsing ou| of the use oJ the uehicLe in a publtc place, ond against d.eoth or bodiltl ttjury to ang passenger of

¶52

';a public seruice- uehicle caused bg or aising out of the use of uehicle in a public 1t[uce. The prouiso cLarifLes thctt the policy shalt noL be requred to couer an emplogee of the insured in respect of bod.ilu injury or death ansing out of and in the course of his emplogmenL. Then, an exception is prouided to the lo'st foregoing^{to the effe(:lllntthe policy must couer a} liabititg aising under the Workmen's C<smpensation Ac| 1923 tn respect of lhe death or bodilg injury to an emplogee who is engaged in driuing the uehicle or who serues as a conducLor in a public seruice uehicle or an empLoyee utho trauels in tlu: uehiclr: oJ the empLoyer carrying goods if tt is a goods carriage. Section )49(1), uhich casts an obLigation on on tnsurer to satisfA an au-tard, also speaks only ol au.tard in respect of such liabilitg as is required to be couered. bg a policy under clause (b) of subsect[ctn (l) of SecliorL 147 (being a llabiLit.tq couered by the lenns of the policu). 7'his

¶53

, (2007) s SCC 428

¶54

N4C i,..r ( \tA t38 i()t5

¶55

¶56

proui-siot1. cat'Lt7ot therejare be used lo enlarge the Iiabilitll il it does not e.rist il-t term.s of Section 147 of the ,4ct. 14. I-he object of the insistence on insurance under Chapter XI of tle Act thus seems to be to cotnpulsorilg couer the Licbiiiti4 relating Lo their person or prcpe.flies of third partie{. GtTd in respect of emplouees of the insured emptoyer, the i.rabi!{tg l.lnt nrag anse under the Workmen's CorrLpensation Act, 1923 irt respect o.f the diter, tlte con.du,r:trtr uncl the one carried in c, goocis uehicle c<tngitg 17otx1s."

¶57

1,.1. ln vicrv o( thc abovr-' disl:rrssion atlld ('onsi(icr-ing ilrr: prirrciplc larid tftrwn irr thc.rtrovc saici ;ruthoritics .rn(i :;rrrcc thc applicant is not a gratuitous passengcr.rnd as tirc ;rpplicant is :rn cnrploycc rcrrdcring l.ris serviccs to thc opposrtc l)i-r[t! No I trtrtlcr^{,r:nt1tl<lyct:} cm plr:r-t,cr rcliltionshil). llr( (-()rllrLrlrri oi- Lhr; lr::rrned cL)unsel for tirc opposite part), No. 1) t.hat Ll-rc policy docs not cover the risk of helper in view of non-paymcnt o[ additional premium, is unsustainable. Therefore, the oppositc part.v No. 2 is Iiable to indemnify thc opposite party lJo. 1, cmplovcr i.c., ou,ner of the said lorry.

¶58

Though several groLlnds werc raised b-v tlrc lcarned Standing Counscl for thc appel]ant insuranc:r' corupany, il appears thaL most of such grounds are based on question o[ lact but not on question of law, more particularly, rvhen [hc oppositc partv No- 2 iailed to establish [hat tht:rr: arc,crrors al)l)arenl on

¶59

MGP,J CMA I3A 20 I 5

¶60

¶61

the face of the record. The Honourablc Supremc Court in North

¶62

East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha2 held

¶63

as under:

¶64

"9. At the outset, uE may take note of the Iacl, being a settled principle, that the question as to uhether the empLogee met uith an acctd.enl, u.th.elher the accid.ent ocanned duing the course of emplogment, tuhether it arose out of an employment, lau and in u.that manner the accident occuned, uho uas negligent in causing the occident, whether there existed any reLationship of employee and employer, uhat uos the age and monthlLt salary of the emplogee, hou-t mang are the dependents of the deceased employee, the exlent oJ. disobilitg cauied to th.e emplogee due to injuries suffered in an accident, u.)hether there was any insurance couerage obtoine(l bg the employer to couer the incident eLc. (rre some of the mateial lssues r.uhich anse for the lusL decison of the Commissioner in a cloinr pat itn whert an emplogee suffers any bodiLy in1ury or dies durinq the aurse of his emplogment and he/ hLS LRs -sue(-s/ his emploger to claim compensation under the Act.

¶65

The a,torementioned qLeslion.s ore essentiallg the questions of fact antl the reJbre, theu are required to be proued with tLLe aic) ol euidence. Once they are proued etlher wat1, thc ftndurqs recorded thereon ore regarded os tlrc .llnclings <;l fact.

¶66

Th,e appeal prouided under Section 3O of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner lies onlg againd the specifrc ord.ers set out in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 30 o[ the Act taith a further^{rider contained} in the frst prouiso to the sedion that the appeal must inuolue .substoalial questiois of lau-

¶67

In other uords, th,e appeol proutd-ed. under gction 30 of the Act to the High Caurt o:go,insL thc order of the Commissioner is not like a regular first appeal akin to Section 96 of the Code of Ciuil Proedure, I9O8 ulhich can be heard both on focLs and. lau-.t. The appellate jurisdictiort oJ' the Hgh Court

¶68

( I

¶69

r(20t9) II scc 5t4

¶70

:.ii/1,.1 t,: .t( ) i

¶71

i{l

¶72

to d,:cide the ailpazl ls cotfined^{onllj to e;:an'inethL} :;ult:;tantnl qubsiions oi icut^{arking in tlie cdse'"}

¶73

[n vieu, <.rf the^{principle taiC dorvn ir: the abovcsaid} autlloriry. it is clear^{tllat theabove contention o[the} appellanl, - insurance^{cofilpanyis not basec{ or' a rluc'stion ol} la,,r' but ii is purely a^{ques'.icn of fact,r'.'hich canrrr;t bc raisr:d} bt:[<rrc this Court las Pcr Scction 30 of thc^v./orkmcn's I Oonrpettsatiotr Act.

¶74

Unrjt;r thcsc^t:it cutr^{sta nces, t'tris ()rrltrt i:i o!tl-rr;} corrsidc;t'd opirriou th2rt^{the Cotntnissioncr,:-ftc:'ctltlsitlr:rttrg} 'tli thc aspccls, ttas rightly^{came to the couclusion itt:rrvardirtil} c();npcn:itrlr()n trl thc frppticzrnt.^{Thtts. this Ctlurr is not irtclrtlt'ri} i t r-. ultcr Itrc rvith t-hc findings o[^(he Ctlmnrissiott':t^{arl(l tll( rclrv} thr:^(lrvrl Misccllancous Appeal is liable^{to bc dismis:sc'i'}

¶75

r6 Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous^{Appealis ttistrrisst'r.1} Thc;-e shall bc no order as to costs.

¶76

t)ending Miscell+ncous applications,^{if arry, sh:rllstand}

¶77

closcd

¶78

Sd,.B.^{S. CHIRANJEEVI} JOINTREGISTRAR /,TRUE^COPY" vI SECTION^OFFICER

¶79

To,

¶80

1 The commissioner Commissioner^{of Labour for - r, iefrLArnn Employe-es} .-^{Karmika Samkshema C9Tl"l::tionandB} havanam.Deputy RTC Cross^{Road'HYderabad'}

¶81

z ii"J cC t.^{sri T RAMULU, Advocate[oPUCl.} i 5ii.;; i;;;iP^{RAMAK-CIsiNAREDDY'Adv-oca.te'loPucl} i 5li.6d i;^{ari KorA s.uBBA RAo' AdvocateloPucl} 5. Two^{CD CoPies} .-pz.-SP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0410912023

JUDGMENT

GMA.No.138 of 2015

' - :t i l"'
"'-
lrr , q [E[ ?[21
?..1-,
.1,'-,.
| . .. :,"...' .i)

¶87

DISMISSING THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS