Allowed

Ganta Chinnaiah v. Subash Chandra Bose Yuvajana Sangam and Anr.

Telangana HC21 Nov 2023CMA/232/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition allowed an appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act against the Commissioner's order. The court held the awarded compensation amount was reasonable but directed the Commissioner to grant interest at 12% per annum from the date of the accident until the date of deposit.

What did the court decide?

The civil miscellaneous appeal was allowed to the extent of modifying the impugned order to grant interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident till the date of deposit. No order as to costs.

Ganta Chinnaiah Vs Subash Chandra Bose… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY, THE^{TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

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

¶5

crvrL MlscEL^{LANEOUS APP EALNO t2320F 2013}

¶6

AppealUnderSection30ofWorkmen'sCompensationAct,l923againstthe order dated^{30-11-2012rnade in w.c.No.204 of 2008(NF) Passedby the} CommissionerforEmployee'sCompensationandDeputyCommissionerofLabourNizamabad

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ganta Chinnaiah,^{S/o.Rajanna,Occ- Ex-Driverof AutoRickshawBearing} lr".AF z1 i 487i,^Ruo.euipa ffi,^{Makloor [M], Nizmabad District'}

¶9

...AppellanUClaimant

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Subash Chandra^{Bose YuvajanaSangam, Repr-elqledQV-Srl} -A' . ^ ^ Eil;;;;h;;;io*n"i^{ot nuio nicrcniwNo AP 25 r 88721o/o'Gutpa[V]'} Makloor [M], Nizamabad^District.

¶12

2 National lnsurance^{Company Limited,Representedby its Branch Manager} ijd. #;;h off;e^{Laxniirajri compeix,Jiwahar Roa!, Nzam.qbqq} ^^^^. Nli;;"6;;;^{N;i; No]inoT6zsg8/02 valid from 13-5-2002 to 12-05-20031}

¶13

... ResPondents/ResPondents

¶14

Counsel for the^{Appellant:SRl.Y.S' YELLA NAND GUPTA}

¶15

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.2: Sri' S' AGASTYA SHARMA}

¶16

Counsel forthe^{RespondentNo.1: None Appeared}

¶17

The Court delivered^{the following:JUDGMENT}

¶18

¶19

THE HONO URABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRTYADARSI NI CTVIL MISCELLANEOU S APPEAL No. 232 0F 2013

¶20

JUDGMEN T:

¶21

Dissatisfied with the order dated AO.II.2Ol2 in W.C.Case No. 204 of 2OO4 NF passed by the Commissioner for Employees, Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour (for short 'the CommissionerJ at Nizamabad, the claimant has hled the present appeal.

¶22

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

¶23

The brief lacts of the case are that the claimant has hled an application under the provisions of Workmen,s Compensation Act, 1923 (amended as Employees, compensation Act) (for short 'the ActJ claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,00O/_ for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 10. I2.2OO2. Ir is stated that on the fateful day, upon the instructions of opposite party No. 1, employer, the claimant was proceeding as driver on the auto bearing No. Ap 25 T gg72, owned by opposite part5r No. l, employer, insured with opposite party No. 2, insurer. At about 04:00 a.m., when he reached near Laxmi kalyana Mandapam, Armoor Road, the claimant lost control ovcr the said auto and hit another auto bearing No. Ap

¶24

MGP'J CW No.2j2^{of 20|j}

¶25

¶26

25^tJ l4l.^{As a result, the applicant sustained fracture of right} wrist, fracture^{of lowerend of radius right' fracture of left foot} metatarsal^{bone 3d, 4th, sth hngers,fracture of right collar bone} right clavicle,^{fracture of lower end of tibia left ankle'multiple} abrasions on^{left leg, abrasions over right forearmand other} multiple^{injuriesall over the body' Immediately' he was shifted} to Government^{HeadquartersHospital'Nizamabadand later'he} took treatment^{in private hospitals' Based on the complaint'the} Police, Nizamabad^{Police Station, registereda case in CrimeNo'} 258 of 2002.^{According to the claimant'he was hale and} healthy,^{aged about 26 years and earning salary of Rs'5'00/-} per month apart^{from batta of Rs 50/- per day as driverunder} the employment^{of oppositeparty No' 1' Due to the accident'} the claimant^{suffered permanentdisability and lost his earning} capacit5r'^{Hence,the claimanthas {iled the application claiming} compensation^{of Rs.3,O0,000/-againstthe opposite party} Nos. 1 and^{2, who are jointly and severallyiiableto paythe} compensatton

¶27

Before the^{Commissioner,the oppositeparty No' 1'} employer,^{filed counter statingthat the claimantwas employed} under him as^{driver on the said auto and admitted the fact that} the claimant^{sustainedgrievousinjuries while performing his} duties.^{He furtherstated that the said auto was insured with}

¶28

MGP,J CMA No 232 of 201 3

¶29

¶30

opposrte party No.2 and prayed to dismiss the application against him. On the other hand, the opposite party No. 2, insurer, filed counter denying the averments of the application such as employee-employer relationship, salary, age of the claimant and manner of accident. He further contended that unless arrd until it is proved that the claimant sustained grievous injuries during the course of 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.

¶31

On behalf of the claimant, AWs. I and, 2 were examined and Exs.A. 1 to A.7 were marked. Ex.A. 1 is the certihed copy of FIR, Ex.A.2 is the certihed copy of charge sheet, Ex.A.3 is the certified copy of medical certificate, Ex.A.4 is the photostat copy of insurance policy, Ex.A.S is the disabilit5r certificate, Ex.A.6 is the photostat copy of driving licence of the applicant and Ex.A.7 is the photostat copy of RC. On behalf of opposite party Nos. I and 2, none was examined, however, Ex.B.1, copy of insurance policy, was marked.

¶32

The Commissioner after considering the evidence on \ O record, both oral and documentary, by determining the wages of

¶33

MGP,J CMA^No. 232^of20l3

¶34

¶35

claimant as^{Rs.2,6741-per month and percentageof loss of} earning capacity^{as 7oyo, by applying the factor'213'57' for the} age of claimant^{being 27 years,has awarded compensationof} Rs.2,40,836/-.^{Dissatisfiedwith the same, the claimant} preferred the Present^aPPeal.

¶36

7 . Heard learned^{counselfor the claimant and learned} Standing Counsel^{for the Insurance Company' Perusedthe} material available^{on record'}

¶37

The main contention^{of learnedcounsel for the claimant} contended that^{the Commissionerought to have fixed the} interest rate at^{l2o/o per annum from the date of accident till the} date of deposit^{as per the decision of the Apex Court and prayed} to allow the^aPPeal.

¶38

g. On the other^{hand, learned Standing Counselfor the} Insurance Company^{sought to sustainthe impugned order of} the Commissioner^{contendingthat consideringall aspects} including^{the nature of injuriessustained by the claimant and} period of treatment,^{the Commissioner has awarded reasonable} compensation^{and the same needs no interferenceby this} Court.

¶39

MGP,J CMA No. 232 of 201 3

¶40

¶41

Now, the point for determination is as follows: "Wlether the claimant is entitled. fo, compensotion as granted bg the Commissioneri"

¶42

Point:-

¶43

¶44

This Court has perused the material available on record and found that considering the evidence and duly taking into consideration the age and avocation of the claimant and minimum rates of wages fixed at relevant point of time vide G.O.Ms.No. 30 L.E.T. & F (Lab-rr), dated 2T.OZ.2OOO, ttre Commissioner has rightly fixed the income of the claimant at Rs.2,6741- per month and percentage of loss earning capacity at 7Oo/o, applying relevant factor^,213.57, as the claimant was aged about 27 yeats at the time of the accident, awarded the totd compensation of Rs.2,a0,g36/- which is reasonable and needs no interference by this Court.

¶45

However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimant, as per the decisions of the Apex Court in P. Meenaraj as p. Adigurusamgt and. Shobha and. others a. The Chainnan, Viotho,lroro Shlnde Sahakarl Sakhor Karkhrrna Limited and others2. the rate of interest at l2o/o per €rnnum has to be granted. Hence, this Court is of the

¶46

I Civil Appeal No 2O9 of 2022, decided on 6 Jantary 2022

¶47

'^zozz 1ly^aeat

¶48

MGP,J CMA No.232 of20l3

¶49

¶50

considered opinion^{that rate of interest at l2o/o per annumhas} to be granted^{from the date of accident tiil the date of deposit'}

¶51

Accordingly,^{the Civil Miscellaneous Appeaiis allowed by} modifying the^{impugned order passedby the Commissionerto} the extent of^{granting interestrate at l2o/o per annum fromthe} date of accident^{till the date of deposit' There shall be no order}

¶52

as to costs.

¶53

Pending Miscellaneous^{applications,if any' shallstand}

¶54

closed

¶55

Sd/. K. SRINIVASA^RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

lTheCommissionerforEmployee'scompensationandDeputyCommissioner' of Labour- Nizamabad (with records' tr any;

¶60

One^{CC to SRl. Y. S' YELLA NAND GUPTA' Advocate IOPUCI}

¶61

One^{CC to SRl. S. AGASTYA SHARMA' Advocate [OPUC]}

¶62

Two CD^CoPies PSR\v

HIGH COURT

DATED:2111112023

JUDGMENT

CMA.No.232 ol 2013

STAI5
I HE
(
o{) B 7 nAq 20?4
+
t €!'
OESPA Tcu

¶68

ALLOWING CMA WITHOUT COSTS.

¶69

.\r>j
T

Ganta Chinnaiah v. Subash Chandra Bose Yuvajana Sangam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganta Chinnaiah v. Subash Chandra Bose Yuvajana Sangam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E. Anjamma and 6 Others Vs Md. Habeebuddin and Another

Smt.P.Sarala Timothy Vs Smt Kasarapu Anantha Laxmi and 2 Others

M/S.Totaram Papalal Sons Vs Smt. Imrana Qutubuddin

Bathini Pochaiah Vs The Union of India

Kuruva Gangamma and 3 Others Vs Union of India

G.Maddilety Vs the South Central Railway