Dismissed

M/S.Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt.a.Sowndarya and 3 Ors.

Telangana HC8 Nov 2023CMA/205/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner's order granting compensation to the family of a deceased driver killed in an accident. The High Court upheld the Commissioner's finding that an employer-employee relationship existed, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 10.01.2011 in W.C. No. 10 of 2009.

M/S.Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH^{DAYOF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT^{JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI}

¶6

CIVIL MISCELLANEOU^{s APPEAL NO: 205 OF 2011}

¶7

Appeal Under Section 30 Workmen's^{CompensationAct'1923,against the} order dated 10.01 .2011^{in w.c.No.10of 2009 passed by the commissioner for} workmen's compensation and^{Assistant commissionerof Labour, RangaReddy} District at Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s Shriram General lnsurance Co^Ltd,reP by ts Divisional Manager O/o.Jundas Estate, 2nd Floor, Beside^Hotel Jaya lnternational, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶10

...AppellanUOPPosite Party^No.2

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Smt. A.Sowndarya.^{Wo.RajaiahR/o-R P C-olony,.Moulali,} flanga^Reddy.,, - District. C/o.G.Aswinkumar,^{12- 1O-590D1l31,lndiranagar Colony, Road No 5'} Varasiguda, Secunderabad

¶13

2 A.Ramesh, S/o.Raiaiah^{R/o.R.P.Colony, Moulali,} [-anga^{Reddy.District'} Clo.-C Aswint<umar,^t z-t^O-5g0t21131 ,^{lililanagarColony, Road No 5,} Varasiguda, Secunderabad

¶14

3 A.Vamshi, S/o.Ralaiah [R3^{is minor rep by his} 19th91a$^{naturalguardian} i e.ni i nlo.n^{p.Ctilony,'Moulali,RangaR-eddyDistrict.C/o.G.Aswinkumar,} ]ZaOlSSOiZt 6l, tndiijnagai^{Colony]Road I'io.5, Varasiguda, Secunderabad}

¶15

...Respondents/APPlicants

¶16

Veeranna Kommu, S/o.Ramulu,^{aged MajorBusienss No'H'No4-21117} ' Koravi, Dornakal, Hanamkonda,^{Waragnal District'}

¶17

...RespondenUOpPosite^{party No'l}

¶18

Counsel for the Appellant^{: SRI A RAMAKRISHNAREDOY} Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1 & 2 : SRI P RAJESWARI} Counsel for the Respondent^{No. 3 & 4: None appeared} The Court delivered^{the following: JUDGMENT}

¶19

HONOURABLE SMT. WSTICE M.G.PRTYADARSIIII

¶20

CTVIL MISC ELLAITEOUS APPEAL ITo.2O5 of 2O11

¶21

JTIDGMENT:

¶22

I . The present civil miscellaneous appeal has been directed against order dated 1o.ol.2ol r in w.c.No. lo of 2oo9 on the file of the commissioner for workmen's compensation and Assista,t Commissioner of La.bour, Rangareddy District at Hyderabad. The said claim petition was filed by respondent Nos. r to 3 herein and the same was partly allowed by way of common order by ttre Commissioner granting an amount of Rs.5,33,46g/_ towards compensation for death of one A. Naresh (hereinafter referred to as 'deceasedJ in an accident on 1t.Og.2OOg. Aggrieved by the same, the present cir"il miscellaneous appeal is filed at the instance of the insurance company i.e., opposite party No.2 before the Commissioner.

¶23

The appellant herein is opposite party No.2, respondent Nos. I to 3 herein are applicants and respondent No.4 herein is opposite party No'l before tl"e commissioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Commissioner.

'i.: {

MGP,J cMA 205 201^I

The brief facts of the^{case of the applicantsare that the} deceased is son of applicant^{No.l and brotherof applicantNos'2} and 3. The deceased^{was employed as driver under opposite party} No. I on his tractor and^{trailer bearing registration No'AP 36 X} 6555. He was being^{paid monthlywages of Rs'6,000/-by opposite} party No.1. On 1 LO9.20O9,^{the deceasedwas traveling on the said} tractor and trailer^{from Madikonda to Kazipetcarryingsand and he} rnet with accident near^{Wadder Colony.As a result, of grievous} injuries, he died on^{the spot. Oppositeparty No' 1 was having} knowledge of the said^{accident and the tractor and trailerwas} insuredwithoppositepartyNo.2.ThePoliceMadikondaregistered caseinCrimeNo.l3oof20ogunderSections3o4Aand33Tofthe Indian Penal Code,^{1860' Hence, the applicants frled the present} claim petition seeking^{compensationof Rs'6,O0,OOOI-along with} interest.

¶28

Opposite party^{No. 1 filed his counter supporting the case of} the applicants.^{He stated that the tractor and trailer was insured} with opposite party^{No.2 under valid insurance policy and they are} liable to pay compensation^{as claimed by the applicants'}

7//

MGP,J cMA 205 20 t I

It is the case of opposite party No.2 that there was no employee and employer relationship between the deceased and opposite party No. 1. They denied the occurrence of accident, wages paid to the deceased and the registration of crime before Madikonda Police Station. It is their further case that the deceased was not holding vatid driving license and he was driving the tractor and trailer in rash and negligent manner. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶34

In support of thet case, the applicants got examined applicant No.1 as A.W. 1 and got marked Exs.A-l to A-5. Opposite parties did not adduce any oral evidence, but opposite party No.2 got marked Ex.B- 1, in support of its case.

¶35

After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Commissioner held that tJle applicants have successfully proved their case. Hence, the claim petition was partly allowed holding that both the opposite parties were jointly and severally liable and granted an amount of Rs.5,33,468/- towards compensation to the applicants.

¶36

Heard both sides.

¶37

¶38

MGP,J cMA 205 201I

¶39

Lrarned counsel for the appellant/opposite^partyNo.2 i.e., the insurance company has^{contendedthat there is no} employee and employer relationship^{betweenthe deceased and} opposite party No.l.^Hence, the^{Commissioner has wrongly} awarded compensation to the^{applicantsand the impugned} order is liable to be set aside.

¶40

trarned counsel appearing for^{the applicants/respondent} Nos. 1 to 3 contended that the^{employee and employerrelationship} was clearly established before the^{Commissioner.The Commissioner} after considering entire evidence on^{record has righflygranted} compensation and the same^{requires no interferenceby this Court.}

¶41

I 1. Now, the^{point for determination is as follows:}

¶42

"Whether the applicants^{are entitledfor} compensation as^{granted by the Commissioner?"}

¶43

Point:-

¶44

L2. A perusal of the entire^{evidenceplacedon recorddiscloses} that Ex.A- l-First Information Report^{showsthat the deceased was} working as driver of the tractor and trailer bearing^{No.AP 36 X} 6555. At the time of accident, he was driving^{the said vehicle in} rash and negligent manner with high speed and as^{a result, he} - Cashed one Hero Honda Splendor bike and the^{accidentoccurred.}

¶45

¶46

MGP,J cMA_205 20 t I

¶47

Ex'A-2-charge sheet discloses that the deceased was driver of the tractor and trailer and he was carrying load of sand, at the time of accident. Furthermore, opposite party No. I i.e., the owner of the vehicle filed his counter before the Commissioner admitting the manner of the accident and he clearly admitted the employee and employer relationship between the deceased and himself. Ex.B_l insurance policy clearly demonstrates that the vehicle was having valid insurance policy and the sarre was in force at the time of the accident. All these aspects make it clear that the deceased was employed as driver by opposite party No. I and the accident occurred during the course and out of his employment. The same is also supported by the porice reports praced on record as er.idence.

¶48

Under these circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellarrt/opposite part5r No.2 that there is no employee and employer relationship between the deceased and opposite party No.l is unsustainable. This Court is of the considered opinion that t,.e commissioner after considering aII the aspects has rightly awarded just and reasonable compensation. No interference of any kind is required by this Court. This appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

MCP,J cMA 205 201 I

In the result,^{the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissedby} conrrrming order^{dated 10.o1.2011in w.c.No.10of 2009 on the Iile} of the commissioner^{for workmen's compensation and Assistant} Commissioner^{of Labour, Rangareddy District at Hyderabad'There} shall be no order^{as to costs. Miscellaneousapplications pending,if} any' shall^stand closed

¶53

tD/- B's' .HIRANJEEV. ' JOINT REGISTRAR.^/

,/TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

1 . The Workmen's^{Compensationand Assistant Commissioner of Labour'} n"norn"aOy^{Districtat Hyderabad (With records)}

¶59

2 o;"""; iltdr.^{n rinr,nnxnisHNnREDDY' Advocate [oPUC]} 3. ild6 i;^{aRi i RAJESWARI' Advocate [oPUCl} 4 Two CD^Copies

¶60

ADK \k-

HIGH COURT

DATED:0811112023

JUDGMENT CMA.No.205 of 2011

¶65

!.U
t..
(( . II
ot! <br><br>c t/ti'r

¶66

DISMISSING THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS

M/S.Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt.a.Sowndarya and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt.a.Sowndarya and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt.Anubham Pushpavathi and 5 Ors.

The Manager, National Insurancecompany Limtied, Allahabad. Vs Hridaylal Misra and Another

K Pentaiah (Died) Vs the Joint Collector

K.Radhika Vs the South Central Railway

M/S. National Insurance Company Vs Md. Ghouse Moinoddin and Another

New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs Ramana and Another