Dismissed

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Hyd v. Thangeli Vital, Nalgonda District and Ano

Telangana HC2 Nov 2023CMA/421/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Insurance Company appealed the Commissioner's award of compensation for a laborer injured in a vehicle accident. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the policy covered the employee and noting that the substantial questions raised were factual matters beyond the appellate court's jurisdiction under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications stand closed.

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

¶1

[^32s3 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶6

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:421 OF 2014

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, against^the Order dated 30.10.2009 in W.C.No.0S of 2OOB^{(NF) passed} by the^Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation aM Assistant Commissioner of Labour,^{at Nalgonda.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep by its Divisional Manager,^{DO ll,} Ramalaya, Secunderabad Rep by its their Manager, TP HUB, United^lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd. Posset Bhavan, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶10

...Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2

¶11

AND

¶12

'1 . Thangeli Vital, S/o. Shekar, Coolie, R/o. Suryapet Town and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶13

...Respondent No.l1lApplicant

¶14

G. Vidya Sagar Reddy,, S/o. Venkat Reddy, R/o. Rayanagudem,^Suryapet Town and MaMal, Nalgonda District. (Owner of the Tractor and^TrailorNo. AP 24W 6291)

¶15

(Rl dismissed for default vide court order dated 19.02.2023)

¶16

...Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1

¶17

l.A. NO: 2OF 2O1UCMAMP. l,lO: 2281 OF 20101

¶18

Petition under Section 151 of CPC^praying that in the circumstances^stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition in support of condone delay^petition, the High Court may be phased to^grant stay of all further^{proceedingsin WC.No.} 05 of 2008 (NF) dt. 3011012009 on the file of the Commissioner for^Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour at^{Nalgondapending} disposal of the order

¶19

¶20

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Somanchi Venkateswarlu Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Sri C. Mohan prakash Counsel for Respondent No.2 : None appeared The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRTYADARSINI CML MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.42l of 2014

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

Aggrieved by the order dated 3O.10.2OO9 in W.C.Case No. 05 of 2O08 NF (New) passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda, the opposite party No. 2/Insuralce Company has filed the present appeal.

¶24

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

¶25

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant has frled an application under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the ActJ claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,OOO / - for the injurie s sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 30.03.2008. It is stated that on the fateful day, upon instructions of opposite party No. 1, employer, the applicant was proceeding as labourer on the tractor and trailer bearing Nos. AP 24W 6291 and AP 24W 6292 from Suryapet to Bibigudem village for Ioading and unloading soil i.e., chervu matti. When the said tractor and trailer reached outskirts of Bibigudem village, the driver of the

¶26

MGP,J Cl\4A 421^2Ol4

¶27

¶28

said tractor and trailer drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and lost control over the vehicle, due to which, the said tractor and traiier turned turtle. As a result, the applicant sustained fracture of right wrist, fracture of left right Shoulder i.e., right clavicle fracture, grievous injury on right arm and other multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Headquarters Hospital and later he took treatment in private hospital. Based on the complaint, the Police, Chivemla Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 69 of 2008 under Sections 337 and 338 of IpC. According to tlre applicant, he was hale and healthy, aged about 22 years and earning wages of Rs.3,0O0/- per month as labourer under the employment of opposite party No. 1 and used to contribute his entire eamings for the welfare of the family. Due to the accident, he suffered permanent disability and lost his earning capacity. Hence, tJre applicant has filed the application claiming compensation of Rs.3,OO,OOO/ - against the opposite party Nos. I and 2, who are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

¶29

Before the Commissioner, the opposite party No. I frled counter admitting that the applicant was employed under him as labourer on the said tractor and trailer and sustained

¶30

MGP,J cMA 42t 2014

¶31

¶32

injuries while performing his duties. He further stated that the said tractor and trailer was insured with opposite party No. 2. Hence, prayed to dismiss the application 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 relati,onship, salary, age of the applicant and manner of accident. He further contended that unless and until it is proved that the applicant sustained injuries during the course of his emplo5iment and the driver of the said tractor and trailer was having valid and effective driving licence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. He lastly contended that the claim is excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the application.

¶33

On behalf of the applicant, AWs. I arrd 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. Ex.A.l is the certifred copy of FIR, Ex.A.2 is the certified copy of medical certifrcate, Ex.A.3 is the photostat copy of charge sheet and Ex.A.4 is the original disability certificate. On behalf of opposite party No. 2, RW. I was examined and Exs.B.l to 8.3 were marked. Ex.B.l is the copy of driving licence, Ex.B.2 is the RC of vehicle and Ex.B.3 is the copy of insurance policy.

¶34

¶35

MOP,J cMA_421 2014

¶36

The Commissioner after considering the evidence on record, both orai and documentary, by determining the wages of applicant as Rs.3,O13/- per month, loss of earning capacit5z as 45%o, by applying the factor '221.32, for the age of applicant being 22 years, has awarded compensation of Rs.1,gO,Og7/_.

¶37

Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Commissioner, the opposite party No. 2/lnsurance Company has filed the present appeal to set aside the impugned order.

¶38

Heard both sides and perused the record

¶39

Learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party No. 2/lnsurance Company contended that though the insurance policy under Ex.B.3 is subsisting as on the date of the accident, tJ'e policy does not cover the risk of labour, as no additional premium was paid by the opposite party No. 1 and thus, prayed to dismiss the liabilit5z against the Insurance Company.

¶40

On the ottrer hand, learned counsel for the applicant sought to sustain the impugned order of the commissioner contending that considering all aspects including the age and avocation of the applicant, the commissioner has awarded

\ \

MGP,J cMA 42t 2014

reasonable compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.

¶45

In view of the rival contentions, this Court has perused 'the entire record a:nd found that the opposite party No. 2, examined its senior assistant officer, as RW. 1 . RW. 1, in his chief examination, deposed that the said tractor and trailer was insured with opposite party No. 2 vide insurance policy No. O5l7O2 /31 /07 /01 /OOOOOOI2 which is valid from O4.O4 -2OOT to 03.O4.2OO8 and at the time of accident the insurance policy was in force and that the driver of the said tractor and trailer was possessing valid transport driving licence. Except the self serving statement that ttre policy does not cover the risk of labour, as no additional premium was paid by the opposite party No. 1, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced to prove the same. Further, reliance can be placed in a

¶46

judgment reported in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Meeua Variyal and othersl, the Honourable Supreme Court observed as under:

¶47

'UninJluenced bg authorities, ue find no dilficttltg in understanding this prouision os one prouiding tlnt tlte policg must insure an ouner against ang liability to a third. partV co sed- bA or arising ofi of E use of lhe uehicle in a public plore, and agairt de<tth or bdilg injury to ang passenger of a public seruice uehicle caused bg or ari.sing out of the use of uehicle in a public place. Th.e proviso

, 1z\ozy s scc +za

MGP.J cMA 421 2014

claifies thqt tle poticA shall not be required. to couer an emplogee of the insured in respect of boa g i.njury or death arising out of and in de course of his emptogmenL Then, an exception is prouided to the lost foregoing i the effect ihat tle policg must couer a tiabilitg aristng ufuer the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in ,".p.it oy ttn d"oti ?!^{bo*y.i"i"rato an emploAeeuho is engagei in driuing} the uehicle or u.tho serues as a conductor ii a-public serutcZ uehicle or an employee uho trauels in the iehicle of the :!9y., :?1!inS^{goodsif it is a soods camage.Siction} 149(1), which c@sfs an obligation on an insurei to sanifu 7.n -1yard,^{alsospeaksonlgof au..tard. in respectof} su;i liabilitg as is required to be couered. Og " p"ticg'unai, clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section t4i be;ng q ttabiliia cguere-d bg the temls of the policg)- This prouision connit t.hereJore be used to enlarge the liabilitg if it does nof exrsl t.n l.erms of Sedion 147 of the Act. 14. The object of the insistence on insurance under Chapter XI oJ tie Act thus seems to be ta contpulsorilg couer the liabititA relqting to their person or properties of third parties andin ,ero"it nf emplogees of the insured emploger, the liabilitg that mol ari.se uru7er the Workmen's Compensation eit, |SZS in respect of the diuer, trc conductor and_ the one catried in a good-s uehicle carrying goods."

¶52

In National Insurance Company Limited v. prembai

¶53

Patel and others2, the Honourable Supreme Court held as

¶54

under:

¶55

"15. Thouqh the aforesaid. decision h:c.s been r-endered- on Section 9S(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1g3g but tlle pinciple underlgino therein tuill be fullu applicabLe here also. ft is tfuts clear fiut in case the outne) of the uehicle uants tle tiability of the insurarrce companq in respect of d-eath of or bodilg injury to ang such empilogss qg ts d.escribed in clauses (a) or (b) or (c) of prouiso (i) io *.don 147(1)h) should not be resticted. to thrLt under the Workm.en's Act but shoutd be more or unlimited, lle must take such a polrcg bu making pagnant of extra premium and tle policg shoul-d ajso contolirt a cta:t.:;e to that effect. !9y7er,^{uhere the policltnentions ,,a poltcu} foi^Act Liabilitu" or "Act Liabititu", the liabilitu of the insurance companlt qua the emplogees as aforesaid uould not be unlimited but utould be limited. to that aising under ttrc Workmen's Act."

¶56

2 AIR 2005 SC 2337

MGP,J cMA_42! 20t4

In view of the above discussion and considering the principle laid down in the above said authorities and since the applicant is not a gratuitous passenger and as t]le applicant is an employee rendering her services to the opposite parly No. I under employee-employer relationship, the contention of the learned Stalding Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 tJlat the policy does not cover the risk of the applicant, in view of non-payment of additionar premium, is unsustainabre. Therefore, the opposite party No. 2 is liable to indemni$r the opposite party No. l, empioyer i.e., owner of the said lorry.

¶61

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 fatled to establish that there are errors apparent on the face of the record. The Honourable Supreme Court in North East Katnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujathae held

¶62

as under:

¶63

-"9,.^{At the outset, tDe maAtake note of the} Jact,^being a s-ttkd pinciple, *nt fiie question ," to --h.tto, ti" emplogee met with an rccitlent, tahether tn" iiaeit occungd duing the murse of emplogment, Luhetller it arose oul ol an emplogienL hou ond in uh.at manner tle accident ocanted., uho uos negligent in causing ti

¶64

accid.ent, wltether tlere existei^-""g ,.j"tiorr_ship il

¶65

'lzore;rrsccst+

¶66

.t: MGP,J cMA 42t_2014

¶67

¶68

"Jil'ffl; tr:"",,$,:;'.7 n?'-' o' the ase and. monthty tr:-aeciasea"";i;;;,;:tW,:;"t:r"f:".:::::;{{ tte emploAee due to ini :y:,!:t;y;;;;?;,;,#::;;{::::,..:0ff ^:;zx";,; empbger to couer the incident etc. "r" ;;;i1;;ir?r",]r, rssues rzhiclr arise for the iust decision .t ri" tr,^^r{"i2,r", ::;;':::"r::,;:,::i;:":.^o,:"';ri";;;;';";::;:i:u oJ his emptosmlnt and underthe n"ti Ln'' Act. ',i"i;;i;"z#y:: ptoger to claim compensotion

¶69

Tle aforem_entia questions are essentiattv the questionsif ia;-;:#';:#:l proued eitler uag, uith ,i.'niii"ri" the aid. of "ilt!o'"'theg "uldence'^once are^theu required^{are Drot'erl} to bte t carded thereon are regorded as tn" Snai.,i. iit .i.""""

¶70

The appeol Drouided under Section 30 of he Act t:-tle Hiqh Co.ur1 against tn" ora., o1 ,n" Ci^,ii;";;;;" ontg against the specific orde seclioi so "i rn;"i.ikiiZrs.set^{out in ctauses(a) to (e)} of Trst^prouiso to ;;*";;:';"",f1trc.r^{ider antained in thl} subsiantiat qules;;;;;;;;;.that^{the aPpeat mustinuotup}

¶71

In .otrcr iord.s, the oppeal provided. under secfion 30 of the Act to the i) tp-lo^yoi,1o,1L;;i-iu:!'X^,"tiiX,H,:;T;;:i.;tr;?: i?tr:;'r:{;':'"?:i2..!S,i,procedure,rcbb',"":i""i:, of the Hish ctii"i-i.i.# i7: -!* appettate jurisdiction examrne the substantial or.T.oo*4^{is confined onlg} lo cosie.^,. -^sfions of lau ari,sing in the

¶72

In view of the principle Iaid 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 raw but it is purely a question of fact, which cannot be raised before this Court as per Section 30 of the Workmen,s Compensation Act

¶73

Under these crrcumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Commissioner, after considering all \ \

¶74

MGP,J cMA_421 2014

¶75

¶76

the aspects, has rightly came to the conclusion in awarding compensation to the applicant. Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the hndings of the Commissioner and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is also liable to be dismissed.

¶77

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶78

Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶79

closed.

¶80

Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT RE STRAR

¶81

//TRUE COPY//

¶82

To,

¶83

sEcTtoN o ICER

¶84

1 . The Commissioner lor Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, at Nalgonda.(with records, if any) 2. One CC to Sri Somanchi Venkateswariu, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to Sri C. Mohan Prakash, Advocate IOpUCi 4. Two CD Copies

ASR2AIJB

HIGH COURT

DATED:0211112023

JUDGMENT

CMA.No.421 of 2014