The High Court dismissed an appeal against an order awarding compensation under the Employees Compensation Act. The Court upheld the Commissioner's assessment of wages and interest, finding no illegality in the award. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant's appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRTYADARSINI
CIVIL MISCELLAN OUS APPEA L NO: 445 o F 2018
Appeal Under Section 30 of Employees Compensation Act against order Award the Compensation exceeding the claim, by modifying the order dt L5-I2-2077 passed in E.C.No.1/2006 by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation - Asst Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad.
Between:
,..Appellants/Claimants
AND
.:.Respondents
Counsel for the Appellants: SRI K SARALA MAHENDER REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SMT P. SATYA MANJULA
The Court made the following: ORDER
f
THE HONOU RAB LE SMT. JUSTIC E M.G.PRIYADARSINI CIVIL MISCELLANEO US APPEAL No. 445 0F 2018 JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the order dated 15. t2.2OlT in E.C. No. 0t of 2016(F) passed by the Commissioner for Employees, Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, the applicants have filed the present appeal.
2
MGP,J c r"1A 4452018 w
crossed sevalalcho'ffrastha, bypassNaryankhed, it touched the 11 KV electricalwires, due to rvhich, fire arose in rear sidetire of the saidlorry and whiie the deceased was removingthe wires from the saidtorry battery,he was electrocutedaccidently'Asa result,thedeceaseddiedonthespot.Basedonthecomplaint. the Police,Narayar-rkhed PoliceStation, registered a case in Crime No. 212of 2015.According to the applicants'the deceasedwas 40 years and earningRs 12'000/-per monthas driverundertheemploymentofoppositepartyNo'1'employer and usedto contributehis entire earnings for the welfareof the family. Due tothe sudden demise of the deceased'they lost their onlybread rvinner and Iove and affection'Hence'the applicantshave hled the application claiming compensationof Rs. 12,OO,O0O/-against the opposite party Nos' I and 2' who are jointly and severally liableto pay the compensation'
,f
MGP,J CMA 445 2OI8
J
t
counter denying the averments of the application such as employee-employer relationship, salary, age of the deceased and manner of accident. He further contended that unless and until it is proved that the deceased died during the course of his employment and was 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.
MGP,J cMA 445 20I8
4
\
and advocatefee of Rs.2,095/-, has awarded compensation of Rs.7,99,695/-.
g . The maincontention of the learned Counsel for the applicantsis that zrlthough the applicants have statedthat the deceaseclwasearning Rs 12,0OO/- per month as driverunder the employmentof oppositeparty No' 1' the Commissioner has erroneously takenthe monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,0OO/-and prayedto allow the applicationby enhancing the compensatron.
MGP,J cMA 445 2018
5
,
MGP,J cMA_445 20l8
6
Rs.12,000/-per month as driver'However, the applicants have not adducedany oral or documentary evidence to provetheir claim. Hence,considering the minimumwagesprevailingat the relevant pointof time inpursuance of the G'O N[s'No'9o' LET & F d,ated,28.rJ9.2O07, the Commissioner has rightly fixed the monthlywagesof the deceased at Rs'8,O00/-' whichneeds no interferencebY this Court"
13 Insofar asinterestis concerned,as per the decision of the others u. TheChairman, Apex CourtinShobhaand Sakhcr KarkhanaLimited ViothalrooShindz Sahakari crnd othersl andP. Meenaraj v' P'Adiguntsamgz 'the Commissionerhas rightlyawarded72o/o rale of interest from the date of accidenttill the date of realizationand the same is not disturbedherewith.
| 2022 (3) ABRI
2 Civit Appeal No 2og ol2022, decided on 6 Jantary2022
MCP,J cMA_445_2018
'7
h
order passed by the Commissioner. Thus, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed
sd/- K. SRrNrvAsA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR
*c,"
/ lTRUE COPY/ I
SECTION OFFICER
SECTION To, 1 32. . . Two 9n" One CD Copies99 CC to to SMr SRI. p. K SARALA sAryA MeNjuLA; MAHENDER Ad;;;"i; REDDYAdvocate topucf-Lv! toPUCIver RVR VH "\P
HIGH COURT
DATED:I4/09/2023
J UDGM ENT
CMA.No.445 of 201a
1 $E ST41 €'
(
(
z
3 zs DEI zon L)
.1,
* *
rO
oE3orrf'n
DISMISSING THE CMA
WITHOUT COSTS
v>
22
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the compensation awarded by the Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act was erroneous and required to be enhanced.
Whether the wage assessment of Rs. 8,000/- per month by the Commissioner was justified in view of the evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sakharkhana LimitedReferred¶52
Sakharkhana Limited v. Vithalrao Shinde
P. MeenarajReferred¶52
P. Meenaraj v. P. Adiguntsamgni
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Rafeeqa Begum and others
Syed Abdul Samad
United India Insurance Company Ltd.
M.G. Priyadarsini
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
