Dismissed

The National Insurance Company, Abids, Hyderabad v. M.Ramanamma, Warangal District and 5 Others

Telangana HC8 Sept 2023CMA/501/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by an Insurance Company against a Workmen's Compensation Award. The High Court held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation as the vehicle was insured, the driver held a valid license, and the employer-employee relationship existed. The Court found no substantial question of law to interfere with the Commissioner's finding

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

The National Insurance Company, Abids… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s3 I

¶2

I !

¶3

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

¶4

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH^DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

. PRESENT

¶6

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

¶7

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: so1 oF 2010

¶8

Appeal Under Section 30 Workmen's Compensation^{Act,1923 against the} orders dated 14.05.2009 in W.C.88^{of 005passed by the Comrnissioner of} Labour-lll T.An.iaiah Karmika Samkshema^{Bhavani,R.T.C 'X' Roads, at} Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

The National lnsurance Company,^{Rep. by its DivisionalManager Divisional} Office-lV, MJ Road Abids, Hyderabad.

¶11

...APPELLANT/2"d Opposite Party

¶12

AND

¶13

M.Ramanamma, W/o. Late M. Ravi,^{Occ: Housewife}

¶14

M. Ramesh, S/o. Late M.Ravi

¶15

M. Nagesh, S/o. Late M.Ravi

¶16

M.Narsaiah, S/o. Chinna^Ramaiah

¶17

M.Yadamma, Wo. M.Narsaiah

¶18

All are Rl/o Pembarthy^{Village and Post, Jangaon Mandal, WarangalDistrict.}

¶19

1. D.Narsai€h, S/o. Yadagiri, Occ:^Business (R/o. H.M.2-3011, Pembarthy Village & Post, Jangaon^{Mandal' Warangal} District ) ...RESpoNDENT/isr oppostrE^pARw

¶20

Counsel for the Appellant:^{SRl. A VEERASWAMY}

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.1to 5: C VIKRAM CHANDRA}

¶22

Counsel foi the Respondent No.6: None^Appeared

¶23

The Court made the following:^JUDGMENT

¶24

THE H(^{INOT'BABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI} CTVII , MISCE^{LLANEOUSAPPEAL No. 5O1 OF 2OlO} JUDG MEN'^f:

¶25

Aggrieved by^{the order} dated^I4.O5.2OO9 in^W.C.Case No. 88 of^{2OO5passedby the Commissionerfor Workmen's} Compensation^{' and Assistant Commissioner ofLabour-lll,} Hyderabad,^{the oppositeparty No. 2/Insurance Company has} filed the Pr()sent^aPPeal.

¶26

For the^{sake of convenience,hereinafter,the partieswill} be referred^{as per their array beforethe Commissioner.}

¶27

The brief'facts^{of the case are} that the applicant has filed an application^{under theprovisionsofWorkmen's} Compensation^{Act, 1923 (amendedas Employees'compensation} Act) (for shcrt 'the^{Act) claimingcompensationof Rs.4,OO,OOO/-} for the dealh^{of one Manga Ravi, husband of applicant No.1,} father of^{applicantNos. 2 and 3, son of applicant Nos.4 and} 5 (hereinafter^{referred as 'the deceasedJ in} the^accident that occurred^{01.23.O3.2OO4, alleging that the deceasedwas} employed^{b:r the opposite party No. Ias driver} on the^auto bearing^{No. AP 36 V I21O, whichwas insuredwith opposite} party No. i . It is^stated that on the fateful day, on the instructions of^{t.I-e oppositeparty} No. 1, the deceased was

MGP,J cMA 50t 20to

.:.l

proceeding from Pembarthy to Jangaon and when the said auto reached near Maurya dhaba, it dashed an unknown^jeep. As a result, the deceased died on the spot. Based on the complaint, the Police, Jangaon Police Station, registered a case in Crime 'No. 64 of 2OO4. According to the applicants, the deceased was 34 years old and earning wages of Rs.4,OOO/- per month and batta of Rs.2O/- per day as a driver under the employrnent of opposite part5r No. l. Due to the accident, they lost their only breadwinner and love and affection. Hence, the applicants have filed the application claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,0O0/against the opposite party Nos. I and 2, who are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

¶32

Before the Commissioner, the opposite party No. 1 remained ex porte and whereas, the opposite party No. 2, appellant herein, hled 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 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 arrd prayed to dismiss the application.

¶33

MGP,J cMA,501 20I O

¶34

¶35

On behalf of the^{applicants,AW. Iwas examined and} Exs.A. I to A.8 were^{marked.Ex.A. 1 is the certified copy of FIR,} Ex.A.2 is the^{attested copy of charge sheet, Ex A 3 isthe} attested ccpy of^{postmortemexamination report,Ex'A'4 is the} attested copy of^{inquestreport, Ex.A.S is the original driving} licence of the deceased,^{Ex.A.6 is the photostat copy of RTA} permit, trx A.7 is the^{photostatcopy of certihcate of Registration} of the accident^{vehicleand Ex.A.8 is the photostat copy of} insurance policy. On^{behalf of oppositeparty No' 2, RWs lto 3} were examined aIld^{Exs.B.1to 8.6 weremarked.Ex'B 1 is the} true copy of the insurance^{policy, Ex.B.2 is the originalclaim} form subrrLitted by the^{opposite party No. Itowards OD claim,} Ex.B.3 is the original^{investigationreport, Ex.B.4 is the attested} copy of RTA^{permit,Ex.B.S is the attestedcopy ofRTA} registration certifrcate^{and Ex.B.6is the. originalreceipt issued} by the deceased to opposite^{part5r No. Itowards sellingof the} vehicle.

¶36

The Commissioner after^{considering the evidence on} record, bolh oral and documentary,^{by determining the wages of} deceased as Rs.2,934/-^{per month,by applying the factor} 'lg2.l4'for the age of injured^{being 37 years, along with stamp}

¶37

MCP,J cMA 501 20lo

¶38

¶39

and advocate fee of^Rs.I ,O6⁴ /^{-, has awarded compensation of} Rs.2,a2,933/-.

¶40

Aggrieved by the^{compensationawardedbythe} Commissioner, the opposite^{party No. 2/InsurarceCompany} has filed the present appeal^{to set asidethe impugned order'}

¶41

Heard both sides and^{perused the record.}

¶42

g. l.earned Standing Counsel^{for the InsuranceCompany} contended that there is no^{employer-employee relationship} between the insured and the^{deceased. He furthercontended} that there is no contract of^{insurancebetweeninsurance} company and deceased as the^{said auto wasregisteredin the} name of opposite^{party No. 1, present owner of the saidauto} and the policy of insurance^{was in the name of the deceased,} who happened to be the^previous owner ofthe^{said auto and the} deceased was employed under^{OppositeParty No. l,present} owner of the said auto. Thus, the^{Insurance companyis not} liable to pay compensation.

¶43

On the other hand, learned^{counselfor the applicant} sought to sustain the impugned^{order of the Commissioner} contending that considering all aspects^{includingthe age and} avocation of the deceased, the^{Commissionerhas awarded}

)

MGP,J CMA 50I-2OIO

reasonablf compensation and the same needs no interference by this Corrrt.

¶48

I l. The applicant No. 1, wife of the deceased, was examined as AW. 1, 'vho has reiterated the averments of the application in her chief ,:xamination. Though AW. I was cross examined at length nothing was elicited to discredit her statement. Ex.A.5, original dr.ving licence of the deceased, discloses that the driver of the saic lorry was having valid driving Iicence. It is not the case of thr opposite party No. 2 that the driver of the said auto was not hrrving any licence. It is pertinent to note that if at all the deceased was not holding valid and effective driving license, certainly the Police, Jangaon Police Station would have registered the case against the deceased also for violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act for contributory negligence on the part ol the deceased. But there is no such instance in the present caiie.

¶49

It is pertinent to state that even for the sake of arguments if we accept the contention of the learned counsel for opposite party No. 2t as true, mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualihcation of the driver for driving at the relevant time,

¶50

MGP,J CMA 50I 20 10

¶51

¶52

are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties.

¶53

The High Court for the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh in the United India Insurance Company Limited v. Sri Mohd.

¶54

Khaleel Khan and othersl, held as under:

¶55

"9. The prouisions of Workmen's Compensation Act no u-tLere prescribe that if a driuer A emploued he shouJd possess ualid licence as is required in terms of the mandate of Motor Vehicles Act 1939. This uieu.t is .fortified^{blt the} iudqment^{of Hon'bleHiqhcourt of} Karnatka titled Oiental Insurance Co. Ltd. u. Ha-ziro Begum and others reported in MANU/ KA/ 0384/ 1994, it is profitable to reproduce th.e para 9 of the judgment herein:

¶56

"9- A scan of uaious d-eci-sions of the Hiqh court u.till disclose thot tuh-ere a u.nrkman uta.s engoqed in the emplouer's business and uho uas d.oinq the uery thinq h-e wo-s emploged to do, then the mere fact that he tua.s not actins stictlu bu the letter of lau uill not make the occident anu the less 'arisinq out of and in th.e course of emploument.' It follotus, therefore, the outner and insurance companA ore both liable in such an euent."

¶57

74 . It is pertinent to note that the claim of the applicant is filed under the provisions of Empl,oyees Compensation Act, which do not mandate that if a driver is employed, he should possess valid licence as is required in terms of the mandate of Motor Vehicles Act 1939. However, in the case on hand, the driver of the said auto i.e., the deceased was having driving Iicense under Ex.A.S. Hence, it is opined that the driver of the

¶58

'^{cM.a. No.8720f 2005decidedon t4.10.20l5}

¶59

MGP,J cMA_501 2010

¶60

¶61

said auto i.e., the^{deceasedcan drive the said vehicle and that} there was no violation^{of policyconditions.}

¶62

The other Bench of^{this Court in New India Assurance} Company Limited v.^{Smt.N.Anjilamma and five others2held}

¶63

as under:

¶64

"¹³ . A^pentsal of^the iudgment^inSuaran Singh's case (1 supra), it lDould^{discLose thdt the} Honble Apex Court held that the^{breach of policg} conc'.ition e.g., disqualificotion of diuer^orinualid diung licence of the diuer, as contained in^sub- sectton (2)(a)(ii) of section 149,^{hnueto be prouedto} Lnue been ammitted ba the insured for^auoiding Iiabilitg bg tte insurer. Mere absence, fake^{or inualid} diung licence or dbqtalifrcation of^{the diuer} for diwng at the releuant time, ore^not in^themselues defences auailable to the insurer against^eitherthe insured or the third parties. To auoid its^liabilitg tou.xtrds itt sured, the insurer hos to^{prouethat the} insured. uas guittA of negligence^and failed^{to exercise} reasonable eare in the matter of fulfilling the^condition of the policE regarding use of uehicles bg^dulglicensed driutr or one utho uas not dbqualified to^{driue at the} releL,ant tim.e.

¶65

The insurance companies are, houeuer,^u.tith a uieu to auoid their tiabilitg flrust not onlg establish^the auoitable defene(s) raised. in the said^proceedings but musl olso establish^'breach' on the^part of the ouner of tt,e uehicle; the burden of proof u.therefor uould be ontlem-

¶66

The court connot lag dou-tn ang citeria as to hou the said burden u.tould be di-schorged, inasmuch as the sam-e uould depend upon the facts ond ciro, ntstonce of each case.

¶67

Euen uLhere the insurer is oble to proue breach on the part of the insured concerning the^policy conaition regarding holding of a ualid licence bg the diuer or hi.s qualifrcation to diue duing the releuant peiod, tlrc in-surer uould not be alloued to auoid its liabi'itg touards insured unless th.e said brEach or breaches on the condition of diuing licence is/ are so

¶68

2 CMA No.47 69 of 2O04 decided on 27 .1O.2021

MGP,J cMA 501.-20r0

fundamental^{as are} found^{to haue contibutedto the} cause of the accident. The Tibunals in interpreting the policg conditions u.nuLd applg^"the rule of main purpose" and the concept of^'fundamental breach" to allou defences auailable to the insured under section 149(2) of the Act.

¶74

14- The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the said^judgment is not applicable to th-e Workmen's Compen sation Act is not con-sidered ualid. Though it u-tas giuen under tlne Motor Vehicles Act, it is equallg applicable to tte Workmen's Compensation Act. The Insurer could not auoid hi,s liabilitg tou-nrds the insured. unless he proues thnt the breach utas so fundamental to haue contributed to the cause of the accident. The deceased. uo-s not driuing the uehicle at the time of the accid-ent, but u.tas crossing th-e rood to attend the nature call bg stopping his lorry. As sucft, the policg anditions regarding diuer not holding diuing licence at the time of accid.ent cannot be considered as fundamental breach that had contibuted to the cause of the accident, so as to dAchnrge the appellant from the liabilitg. The aboue^judgment also drlscloses that the absence of the d-riuing licence cannot be a reo-son to deng the ampensation uhen there utas a ualid. insurance policg- As such it is considered thdt tle Commissioner had not ammitted anA effor in po-ssing the duord holding the Opposite Pctrties jointlg and seuerallg liable to paA compensation to the applicants. Tle order of the Commissioner u)as not contrary to law or probabilities of the case and u.ns not liable to be set aside. Hence, I do not find- any merits in tle appeaL and therefore, tLte same is liable to be dismi-ssed."

¶75

L6. In the case on hand, the opposite party No. 2 has not placed any material to establish that the deceased was not holding valid and effective. The opposite party No. 2 has not even made any efforts to examine the RTA ofhcials to substantiate their contention that the deceased was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the said auto. Moreover, the policy conditions regarding driver not holding

MGP,J cMA 50r-2010

valid and r:ffective driving licence at the time of accident cannot be considered as fundamental breach that had contributed to the cause of the accident to discharge the Insurance company from the liability. In such circumstances, as stated supra, mere absence, fe ke or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for lriving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences a'zailable to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties, more particularly when no material is placed by the opposite party No.2 to substantiate their contention. Moreover, when two views are possible, thb view that is benefrcial to the claimants has to be taken, since the Employee,s Compensatron Act is a benehcial legislation meant to protect the interest of employees and workers.

¶80

17 . With regard to the employee-employer relationship between the deceased and the opposite .party No. l, learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company contended that there is n o employee-employer relationship between the deceased and opposite party No. 1. AW. 1, applicant, deposed that the de<;eased died while discharging his duties as driver during the course of his employment under opposite parqr No. 1. In support of their claim, they Iiled Ex.A.l, FIR; Ex.A.2, charge sheet and Ex.A.4, inquest report, which clearly discloses

¶81

MGP,J cMA 501 20 to

¶82

¶83

that on the date of accident^{i.e., on 23-O3.2OO4,the deceased} succumbed to the^{injuries while discharging his dutiesas driver} on the said auto. Further,^{the Honourable Supreme Court in} North East Karnataka Road^{Transport Corporationv'}

¶84

Sujatha3 held as under:

¶85

"9. At the outset, u)e may take^{noteof tle} fact,^{being a settled pinciple,that the question as} to uhether the emplogee^{met u-tith an acciden|} whetter the accident occuted^{duing tle aurse} of emplogment, rohetler it^{drose out of an} employment, lnu and^{inuhatmannertLe} accident ocanrred, uLa uas^{negligent in causing} the acciden| uhether^{there eistedang} relation ship of emplogee ond^{employer,wlrnt was} the age ond monthly salary^{of the emplogee, hottt} manA are the dependents of^{the decea,sed} emplogee, the extent of^{disabilitgcaused to ttrc} employee due to injuies^{suffered in an acciden|} whetlrcr there u.tas any^{insurancecouerage} obtained bg tte employer^{to couer the incident etc.} are some of the mateial^{issuesrtthich arise} for tle^just decision of^{the Commissioner in a claim} petition uhen an emplogee suffers^{ang .bodilg} injury or dies duing the^{course ofhis} employment and he/ his trRs^{sue(s/ his emploger} to clqim compensation under^tte Act.

¶86

TIE aforementioned^questionsare essentiallg tle^{questions of} fact^{and tlerefore,} they are required to be^{proued uith tle aid of} euidence. Once theg are^{proued eitherwag, the} findings^{recorded thereonare regarded a.s tlle} findings^offact.

¶87

The appeal prouided^{underSection 30} of the Act to the High^{Courtagainst the order of} the Commissioner lies^{onlg against tlre specific} ord.ers set out in clauses^{(a) to (e) of Section3O of}

¶88

3 (2O 19) I I SCC 514

¶89

¶90

MCP,J cMA 50r 2010

¶91

the Act with a further ider contained in the first protiso to the section that the appeal must inuolue substantial questions of lanu.

¶92

In other tuords, the appeal prouided under Section 3O of the Act to the High Court aga,:nst the order of the Commissioner is not like a reguldr ftrst appeal akin to Section 96 of the Code of Ciuil Procedure, 19O8 tuhich can be heard botl. on facts and lana. The appellate jurisdiction of tlrc High Court to decide the appeal is conlined onlg to examine the substantial questions of lau) aising in 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 c uestion of fact, which cannot be raised before this Court as per Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

¶94

Insot'ar as liability is concerned, it is the main contention of the leatned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Compaly that Insurimce Company is not liable to pay the compensation as the poli<y of insurance was in the name of the deceased, who happened Lo be the previous owner of the said auto and the vehicle war; registered in the name of the opposite parer No. 1, present owqer of the said auto, under whom the deceased was employed as driver on the said auto. RW. 1, senior assistalt of opposite party No. 2, admitted that the said auto bearing No. Ap 36 V l:210 was insured vide policy bearing No.

MGP,J cMA_50r_2010

4\551303\3i \63011627,^{which was valid from 24'O9'2OO3to} 23.O}.2OO4 and the^{same was inforce as on the date of} accident. RW. 2,^{investigatorof opposite part5r No' 2, admitted} that the said auto^{was sold by the deceasedto opposite party} No. 1 on 21.O3.2OO3^{and the transfer was effectivefrom} 25.O3.2OO3 by the RTA^{and filed Ex.B.6, original receipt issued} by the deceased to^{opposite party No. 1 towards sellingof the} vehicle. Ex.B.S, attested^{copy of RTA registrationcertificate,} shows that the ownership^{of the vehicle was transferred from} the deceased to Opposite^{Party No.1 .Furthermore,RW' 3,} opposite party No.^{1, admittedthat the deceased during and in} the course of the employment^{as driver on the said auto'} Therefore, the Commissioner^{has rightly held that the Insurance} Company is liable to^{pay the compensation jointlyand severally} along with Opposite Party^{No.1, present ownerof the said auto,} as long as the policy^{is subsistingin respect of ttre vehicle,even} in cases where the^{transferwas not intimated to the Insurance} Company and the^{same needs no interferenceby this Court'} Hence, the contention of^{learned Standing Counselfor the} Insurance Company,^{is unwarranted.}

¶99

Under these circumstances,^{this Court is ofthe} considered opinion that^{the Commissioner,after considering all}

MOP,J CMA_sOI 20IO

the aspecls, has rightly come to the conclusion in awarding compensation to the applicant. Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings of the Commissioner and thereby the Civil IVtiscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶104

2I. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeat is dismissed

¶105

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶106

Pen<ling Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stald

¶107

closed

¶108

To,

¶109

Sd/. C.V.MALLIKARJUNA VARMA JOINT REG

¶110

//TRUE COPY// frnnn / l',-' sEcTION OFFICER

¶111

The Commissioner of LabourJll T.Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavani, ^^{i.r.c^ ?(: Ro-ads, at Hygqrgg?gj(witn irecoroi ir inyl} ? 9ne 9Q^{to SRt. A vEER^g!,vAMy,} Aoro""i" topijct 3. one cC to sRt. c vtKRAM cHAnrjRA;'d;t-"l,i" t"opucf 4. Two CD Copies ASR/PR \ ,- $x-

HIGH COURT

MGP, J

DATED: 0810912023

ORDER CMA.No.501 of 2010

¶116

H€ S T.4 i{:
((
oo 2 3 FEts 2!24 ."
.?CS r'a .,-:,---

¶117

DISMISSING THE CMA