Partly allowed

Asiya Begum , Asha Begum and 5 Others v. S Ram Reddy and Another

Telangana HC22 Nov 2023CMA/305/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal against a workmen's compensation award, holding that a policy stating 'Act Liability' covers employee death arising from employment without extra premium. The court allowed the claimants' appeal to negate interest at 12% per annum on the awarded amount from the accident date to deposit.

What did the court decide?

C.M.A. No.57 of 2013 dismissed; C.M.A. No.305 of 2014 partly allowed to award 12% per annum interest on compensation from date of accident.

Asiya Begum , Asha Begum and 5 Others Vs S… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA , ATHYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶6

ctvrL Mrsc ELLANEOUS APPE NOs: 57 OF 2013 & 5 0F 2014

¶7

Appeals under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, against the Order dated 15.11.2012 made in W.C.No. 185 of 2011 passed by the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour- lV T. Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavan: RTC 'X' Roads, Hyderabad.

¶8

C.M.A.No. 57 ot 2013 Between:

¶9

The Oriental lnsurance Company Ltd., Represented by its Divisional Manager Divisional Office - lV, #6-2-976, 1st Floor Pavani' Estates Khairathabad Hyderabad

¶10

...Appellants/Opposite Party No.2

¶11

AND

¶12

9mt. Asiya [egum @ Asha Begum, W/o. Late Md. Sarvar Age: 33 years, Occ House wife F/o. H.No. 5-83 Charminar Majid Pahadisharif Village^' Saroornagar Mandal, Hyderabad

¶13

Melaj Begum, D/o. Late Md. Sarvar Age: 13 years, Occ Student Rt/o. H.No_ 5- 83 Charminar Majid Pahadisharif Viltage Saroornagar Mandal, Hyderabad

¶14

Jahangir, S/o. Late Md. Sarvar Age: 11 years, Occ Student Rl/o. H.No. S-83 Charminar Majid Pahadisharif Village Saroornagar Mandal, Hyderabad

¶15

Ghouse, S/o. Late Md. Sarvar Age: I years, Occ Student Rt/o. H.No. 5-83 Charminar Majid Pahadisharif Village Saroornagar Mandal, Hyderabad

¶16

5 {haja, S/o. Late Md. Sarvar Age: 6 years, Occ Student R/o. H.No. 5-83 Charminar Majid Pahadisharif Village Saroornagar Mandal, Hyderabad

¶17

Sadiqua, D/o. Late Md. Sarvar Age: 4 years, Occ Student Ryo. H.No. 5-83 Charminar Majid Pahadisharif Viliage Saroornagar Mandal, Hyderabad

¶18

RR 2 to 6 rep. by her Natural Mother and Guardian of Respondent No. 1

¶19

S. Ram Reddy, Age: Major, Occ Business Rl/o-H.No. 9-S-1lpt1 Chawpet Saroornagar Hyderabad

¶20

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶21

C.M.A.No. 3(5 ot 2014

¶22

Between:

¶23

Asiya 3egum @ Asha Begum, W/o. Late Md. Sarvar Age: 35 years- Occ House wife R/o. H.No. 5-83 Charminar Majid Pahadisharif Village Saroor ragar Mandal, Hyderabad-

¶24

Me,:at l)egum, D/o. Late Md. Sarvar Age: 15 years. Occ Student R/o. H.No. 5-83 Clrarminar Majid Pahadisharif Village Saroornagar Mandal, Hyderabad

¶25

Jahangir, S/o. Late Md. Sarvar Age: 13 years. Occ Student R/o. H.No. 5-83 Charminar tvlajid Pahadisharif Village Saroornagar Mandal, Hyderabad

¶26

Ghouse (DIED), -

¶27

Khaja, S/o. Late Md. Sarvar Age: 6 years. Occ Student R/o. H.No. 5-83 Charmirar Majid Pahadisharif Village Saroornagar Mandal, Hyderabad

¶28

Sadiqua, D/o. Late Md. Sarvar Age: 6 years. Occ Student R/o. H.No. 5-83 Charmirrar Majid Pahadisharif Village Saroornagar Mandal, Hyderabad

¶29

Appella rts No.2 to 6 are minors rep by their Mother and natural Guardian ie., Appella rt No.1

¶30

...Appellants/Applicants

¶31

AND

¶32

S. Ram Reddy, Age: Major, Occ -Business, R/O H.No.9-5-1/P/1, Chawpet, Saroor l,lagar, Hyderabad.

¶33

The Orie'ntal lnsurance Company Ltd.,, Rep by its Divisional Manager, DO-IV, # 6-2-97 6, 1st Floor Pavani Estates Khairathabad Hyderabad

¶34

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶35

CMAMP. NO: 102 OF 2013 in CMA.No. 57 ol 2013

¶36

Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the irffidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including execution of the order passed in WC No. 185 rrf 2011 dated 15.11.2012 on the file of the commissioner for Employees Cornpensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour lV Hyderabad pending disposal of the appeal.

¶37

Counsel for the, Appellant in CMA"No. 57 of .2013

¶38

SRI. M SATISH REDDY

¶39

Counsel for Re;pondent Nos. I to 6 in CMA.No. 57 of 2013 & Appellants in CMA.No. 305 ot 2014

¶40

STi T. VISWARUPA CHARY

¶41

¶42

Counsel for Respondent No.2 ln CMANo. 305 of 2014 STi NARSIREDDY TEEGALA

¶43

Counsel for Respiondent No.3 in CMA.No. 57 of 2013 and Respondent No. 1 in CMA.No.305 of2014 : None appeared

¶44

The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶45

,'<

¶46

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶47

CwIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.57 OF 2013 AND 3OS OF 2014

¶48

COMMON JIJDGMENT:

¶49

C.M.A No.57 of 2O13 is preferred by the Insurance Company, questioning the order and decree, dated 15.11.2012 made in W.C.No. 185 of 201 I on the hle of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad (for short, 'the^{()ommissioner).} Challenging the very same order and decree, the claimants have filed C.M.A.No.3O5 of 20 14 seeking enhancemenl of compensation.

¶50

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

¶51

The bri :f facts of thc case are that the claimants have hled an application under the provisions of Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, claimir g compensation of Rs.9,00,O00/- for the death of one Md.Sarvar, hrrsband of claimant No. 1, father of claimant Nos.2 to 6 (herein after r:ferred asthe deceasedJ in the accident that occurred on 08.08.20 1 1. F.s per the petition averments, on the fatefui day, upon instructions ,)f opposite party No. 1-employer, the deceased was proceeding as a labour on the tipper bearing No.AEB TS3T lrorn Pahadisharif ftr the purpose of unloading the granite stones load at Mohmadnagar of Bandlagudal loca.lity. When he reached near

¶52

MCP,J C.M.A-No-s7 ol20 13 and C.M.A No-3os ol2014

¶53

¶54

Mahmadiya hills, the driver of the said tipper drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the vehicle, due to which, the deceased fell from the said tipper and sustained grievous head injury. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, for treatment and the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 14.08.2011 while undergoing treatment. Based on the complaint, the Police, Chandrayangutta Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.23i of 2O11 under Section 3O4-A of IPC. According to the claimants, the deceased was 34 years old and earning Rs.5,0OO/- per month as labour under the employment of opposite party No. 1, employer and used to contribute his entire earnings for the welfare of the family. Due to the sudden demise of the deceased, the claimants lost their orrly bread winner and source of income. Hence, they claimed compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- against the opposite party Nos. I and 2, who are^jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

¶55

Before the Commissioner, the opposite party No.¹ , employer, remained ex parte and whereas the opposite party No. 2, insurer, filed counter denying the averments of the application such as employeeemployer relationship, salary, age of the deceased and^{manner of} accident. He further contended that unless and until it^{is proved that} the deceased succumbed to the injuries during the^course of^his employment, the Insurance Company is not liable to^paythe

¶56

MGP,J C M-A-No-57 oJ 20 l3 dd C.M.A.No.3O5 oI2ota

¶57

¶58

'-a .r .,--

¶59

compensati ln. He lastly contended that claim is excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the application.

¶60

On behalf of the claimants, the claimant No. I herseif examined as AW. I and lxs.A. 1 to A.8 were marked. Exs.A. I and A.2 are the certihed copies of FIR and inquest report, Ex.A.3 is the certihed copy of postmortem report, Ex.A.4 is the certified copy of MVI report, Ex.A.S is the certihed copy of charge sheet, Ex.A.6 is the photostat copy of driving license, Ex.l..7 is the photostat copy of insurance policy and Ex.A.8 is the photostet copy o[ ration card. On behalf of opposite party No. 2, RWs. 1 an<l 2 were examined and Ex.B.1, insurance policy, was marked. On behalf of the Commissioner, Exs.X. 1 and X.2 were marked. Ex.X. I is the Authorization letter issued to RW.2 and Ex.X.2 is the driving licens e extract.

¶61

The Commissioner after considering the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, by determining the wages of deceased as Rs.4,393.25 rer month, by applying the factor '199.40' for the age of applicant being 34 years, has awarded compensation of Rs.4,78,53O/-.

¶62

Aggriev,:d by the compensation awarded by the Commissioner, the opposite rarty No. 2/lnsurance Company and the claimants have hled the present appeals to set aside the impugned order.

¶63

¶64

MGP,J C.M-A-No.57 ol2013 ad c.M.A No 305 ol2014

¶65

¶66

Heard learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Companyopposite party No. 2 and learned counsel for the claimants. Perused the record.

¶67

The main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company is that though the insurance policy under Ex.B1 is subsisting as on the date of the accident, the policy does not cover the risk of labour, as no addilional premium was paid by the opposite party No. 1 to cover the risk of the deceased ald thus, prayed to dismiss the liability against the Insurance Company.

¶68

i0. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants contended that though the claimants stated that he was earning Rs.5,0OO/-^per month under the employment of opposite^party No. 1, the^commissioner erroneously fixed the monthly income of the claimant at^Rs.4,393.25, which is very meager and needs to be enhanced. He further^contended that the Commissioner ought to have^granted 1270^{interestper annum} on the awarded compensation from the date of accident lill^{the date of} deposit as per the decision of Apex Court.

¶69

In view of the rival contentions, this^{Court has perusedthe entire} record and found that RW.1, Assistant^{Manager, RTA, Hyderabad,} deposed that the said tipper was insured^with opposite^{party No. 2 vide} insurance policy No.43 37OO I 31 12012 / 3536 which is valid^from \ \

¶70

MGP,J C-M.A-No-57 of20 l3 and C.M.A-No-3os oI20I4

¶71

¶72

30.06.20 1 | to 29.06.2012 and at the time of accident the insurance policy was .n force. However, except stating that the policy does not cover the risk of the deceased, the opposite party No. 2 has not evinced any cogent r:vidence to prove the same. Further, reliance can be placed in a judgmrnt reported in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Meena Vari;7al and othersl, the Honourable Supreme Court observed

¶73

as under:

¶74

'UninJluenced bg authoities, we find no dilficultg in underst,tnding this prouision as one provtding that the policy must tnsure cn ouner against anA ltabilitg to a third partg caused bg or aising )ut of the use of the uehicle tn a public place, and against death o' boditg injury to anA passenger of a pubttc serutce uehicle caused bg or aising out oI th.e use of uehicle in a public place. Tle prouiso claifi.es that the policg shall not be required to cover an emplogee oJ tlrc insured in respect of bodtlg injury or d.eath arising out of ard in the course oJ his emplogment. Then, dn exception is providea to the last foregoing to the effect that the policA must couer a Iiabilitg aising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in respect ttf the death or bodilg inJury to an employee uho is engoged in driutnT the uehicle or tuho serues as a conductor in a public service uehicle <,r an emplogee u.)ho trauels in the vehicle of the emploger carrying goods if tt is a goods carriage. Section 149(1), which casts qn obligtltion on an insurer to satisJg an award, also speaks only of award L respect of such liabititg as is required to be couered bg a policg uitder cLause (b) of subseclion (1) of Section 147 (being a Iiabtlitg covered by the tenns oI the policg). This prouision cannot therefore be used to enlqrge the ttabilitg iJ it does not extst in terms of Sectton 147 of the Act. 14. The object of the insistence on insurance under ClLapter XI of tte Act thus seenls lo be to compulsorily cover the liabil'tg relating to their person or properties oJ third parties and tn respecl of emploAees of tle insured employer, the liabilitg that maA arise uncter the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ii respect of the driver, the conductor and the otrc caried in a good.s vehicle carrying goods."

¶75

In Natir>nal Insurance Company Limited v. Prembai Patel and

¶76

others2, the Ftonourable Supreme Court held as under:

¶77

I (2007) 5 SCC 42t 2 AIR 2005 SC 233 7

¶78

¶79

"dr

¶80

MGP,J
C M.A-No 57 oI2013
aa.l
C.M A No.3oS oI20 t a

¶81

"15. Though the aforesa[d decision has been rendered on Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles AcL 1939 but the principle underlging therein uill be fultg appticable here also. It is thus clear that in case the ouner of the uehicle uants the liabilitg of the insurance compqnA in respect of death oJ or bodilg in1ury to ang such employee as is descibed in clauses (a) or (b) or (c) of prouiso (i) to Section 147(l)(b) should not be resticted. to that under the Workmen's Act but should be more or unlimited, he must take such a policg bA moking pagment of extra premium and. the policg should. also contain a clause to that effect. Howeuer, ulLere the poticg mentions^"a policg for Act LiabilitA" or "Act LiabiLitV", tle liabilitg of lhe insurance compqftA qta th.e emp\ogees as aforesaid tuould not be untimited but t ould be limited to that ortsing under the Workmen's Act.'

¶82

In view of the above discussion and considering the principle laid down in the above said authorities and since the deceased is not a gratuitous passenger and as the deceased is an employee rendering his services to the opposite party No. 1 under employee-employer relationship, the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parfy No. 2 that the policy does not cover the risk of deceased as a labour in view of non-payment of additional premium, is unsustainable. Therefore, the opposite party No.2 is liable to indemnify the opposite party No. 1, employer.

¶83

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. 2 failed to establish that there are errors apparent on the face of the record. The Honourable

¶84

¶85

¶86

MGP,J c M A.No.57 oI20 l3 and C-M-A-No-3oS oJ20t4

¶87

¶88

Supreme Court in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation

¶89

v. Sujathaa held as under

¶90

"9. At the outset, ue mdA take note of the Iact, being a settled pincipl\ that the question as to uthether the emplogee met uith an qccident, uhether the qccident oca nred during the course of employrnent, Llhether it arose out of an emplogment, hout and in what manner the accident occwred, uho uas negligent in causing the^qcctTent, u.)hether there eisted anA relationship of emplogee and employ<,r, whot uas the age and monthlg salary of the employee, laut mcng are the dependents of ttrc deceased emplogee, the ertent of disal,ilitg caused to the emptoAee due to injuies suffered in an acciden;, uhether there uas ang tnsurance couerage obtained by the emploge r to couer the incident etc. are some of the mdterial issues tuhich crise Jor the lust decision oJ the Commissioner in a cLaim petition uhen an employee suJfers ang boditg injury or dies during the cout se of hts emplogment and he/ his lRs sue(s/ his employer to claim conpensation under the Act.

¶91

.O. The aforementioned questions are essentiallA the questions of Jact and therefore, theg are required to be proued with the aid cf euidence. Once theg are proued either waA, the findings recordec' thereon are regarded as the findings offact. ) 1, The appeal provtded under Section 3O of the Act to the Htgh Cort agatnst the order oJ th,e Commisstoner lies onlA against the spec;.fic orders set out in clauses (a) to (e) of Sectton 30 of the Act with a f ulh.er rider contained in the frst prouiso to the section that the appeal must inuolue substanliol questions of law.

¶92

In other uords, the appeal prouided under Section 3O of the Act ti the High Court against the order of the Commtssioner is not like a r< gular rt.rst appeat okin to Section 96 of the Code of Ciuil Procedure, 1908 tuhich cqn be he<trd both on facts and law. The qppellat<' juisdiction of the HLgh Court to decide the appeal is confined onlg to examine the substantial questions of lau arising {n the case."

¶93

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

¶94

'(zors)ttsccst.

¶95

IIICP,J CMANo57ol2013 dtd C-M.A-No-3oS ol2o 14

¶96

¶97

'..'.

¶98

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Commissioner after considering the evidence available on record in proper perspective, has rightly came to the conclusion and hxed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,393.25, applied relevant factor '199.40'as the claimant was aged about 34 years at time of accident, awarded the total compensation of Rs.4,78,530/- which is reasonable, thereby, the commissioner has not committed any illegality or irregularity while passing the impugned order. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the said findings of fact and compensation awarded by the Commissioner and the CMA No.57 of 2013 fited bv the Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed.

¶99

Insofar as rate of intcrest is concerfled, as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in P. Meenaraj o. P. Adigutttsamga and Shobha and others v. The Chairman, Viothalrao Shinde Sahakari

¶100

Sakhar Karkhana Limited and otherss, the claimants are entitled for interest at 72yo per annum on the compensation amount from the date of accident till date of deposit. Hence, this Court is inclined to award interest at l2o/o per annurn on the compensation amount from the date of accident till the date of deposit.

¶101

\Ciul epp."t No 2O9 of 2022, decided on 6 JarlLlary 2c,22

¶102

'zozz 1l;^ennt

¶103

MAP,J C L{.A.No 57 oI2013 ond C M.A.No.3oS oI20I4

¶104

¶105

Accordingly, while dismissing the C.M.A.No.S7 of 2013 hled by the Insuranr:e Company, the C.M.A.No.3OS of 2013 hled by the claimants is partly allowed. The order dated 15.11.2012 in W.C.No. 1g5 of 2O77 passt:d by the Commissioner for Employees, Compensation and Assistant Conrmissioner of Labour at Hyderabad, is modified only to the extent of awe rding interest at l2o/o per annum on the compensation awarded from the date of the accident till the date of deposit. There shall be no or<ler as to costs.

¶106

Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶107

Sd/- B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶108

SECT N OFFICER

¶109

To,

¶110