Partly allowed

New India Assurance Company Ltd., v. M.Sharad and Another

Telangana HC22 Nov 2023CMA/614/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 216 of 2010 partly by modifying the Commissioner's order to award interest from the date of accident rather than from the date of notice. Appeal No. 614 of 2012 was dismissed. The Court held the insurance company liable for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 614 of 2012 dismissed; Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 216 of 2010 partly allowed by granting interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident till the date of deposit

New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t^32s3 J

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERAAAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENW SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶6

CIVIL MISCEL EOUS APPEAL NOs: 216 OF 2o1o AND 614 OF 2012

¶7

Appeals filed under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act aggrieved by the Order dated 09.11.2009 passed in W.C.No. 356 of 2003 (NF) on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad.

¶8

C.M.A.No. 216 ot 2O1O

¶9

Eetween:

¶10

M.Sharad, S/o.Ramesh Age:. 27 years, Occ: Ex Labour R/o.Bodhan, Nizamabad.

¶11

...APPELLANT/CLAIMANT

¶12

AND

¶13

1 . M.Ramesh Chary, S/o.Yadigiri Chary,Age: Irlajor Occ; Lorry Owner R/o.Bodhan, Nizamabad, A.P.

¶14

R-1 dismissed vide cou( order dated 19.04.2016

¶15

New lndia Assurance Co Ltd, rep. by its Divisional Manager O/o.Subash Nagar, Nizamabad, A.P.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS. RESPONDENTS

¶17

C.M.A.No. 614 ot 2012

¶18

Between:

¶19

New tndia Assurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, Opp. ZP Office, 1st Floor, Subahsnagar, Nizamabad ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.2 AND

¶20

1 tV.Sjqra!, S/o. Ramesh, Age: 20 years, Occ: Ex-Labour on Lorry bearing No. ADT 7449 R/o. Bodhan. Nizamabad. ...RESPONDENT No.1/APPLICANT

¶21

Sri M.Ramesh Chary. S/o- Yadagiri Chary Age: Major, Occ: Owner of Lorry b,)aring No. ADT 7449 R/o. Bodhan, Nizamabad

¶22

...RESPONDENT No.2/ RESPONDENT No.1

¶23

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2011(CMAMP. NO: 1375 OF 2011)

¶24

Pr>tition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the order daled O9l1'll20Og passed in W.C.No. 356 of 2003 on the file of the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, including the withdrawal of the amount deposited pending the disposal of the CMA.

¶25

Counsel 6s1 ths Appellant ln CMA"llo. 216 of 2010 & Responc ent No. 1 in CMA.No.614 of 2012 STi K. SARALA MAHENDER REDDY

¶26

Counsel for the Appellant ln CMAltlo. 614 of 2012 & Respondent No.2 in CMA.No. 216 ot 2O1O : Sri KATTA LAXMI PRASAD

¶27

The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSTNI

¶29

CTVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.216 of 2O1O and 614 of 2Ol2

¶30

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶31

These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against order dated 09.11.2009 in W.C.No.356 of 2OO3 (NF) on the hle of the Commissioner for Workmen,s Compensation and Deputy commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the commissioner'). The said claim petition filed by the petitioner therein seeking compensation for injuries sustained by him in an accident, was partly allowed and compensation of Rs.69,115/- was granted along with interest at l2%o per annum from the date of notice to the actual date o[ rea]ization. The respondents therein were directed to deposit the said compensation within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of said order. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner before the Commissioner liled C.M.A.No.216 of 2O10 and respondent No.2 before the commissioner filed c.M.A.No.614 of 2012. Since both the appeals are arising out of same order, they are being dealt with by way of this common judgment.

¶32

For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred

¶33

to as they were arrayed before the Commissioner.

¶34

¶35

¶36

MGP,J CMAS 2 16 2010 & 614 2otz

¶37

It is thr: case of the petitioner that he rvas working as labour on the lorry bea.:-ing No.ADT 7449 und.er employment of respondent No. 1 and he was aged 20 years at the time of accident and was being paid an amount of Rs.S,OOO/- per month towards salary and batta of Rs.20/- per ctay. While so, on 14.O2.2OO3, the petitioner along with others was tr.veling in the said rorry from Bodhan to Bichkunda with load of rice. When the lorry reached Kamshetpally, while taking a sharp tum, t.ee driver lost control over the lorry, the lorry fell into ditch, and accident occurred. In the said accident, the driver, clearer a,.d three other labourers sustained gi-ievous fractures and injuries, including tl're retitioner. The petitioner sustained fracture on reft side chest, left shorrlder, left a,kle, injuries on back bone, head, both legs, left shoulder and other parts of the body. The petitioner was immediately shifted to Nizamabad hospital and subsequently, he was shifted to Hyde rabad for treatment. He incurred expenditure of nearry Rs.2,0O,0OO/-. The police Bichkunda registered case in First Information Report No.14/2003 under Section 337 of the Indian pena_l Code, 1860, in respect of the accident. Hence, the petitioner filed the present claim petition seeking grant of compensation of Rs.5,00,0O0/_ with interest at 24 Vo per annum.

,/-

MGP.J CMAs 216 2Ol0 &^{614 2012}

¶42

Respondent No.1 filed his counter^{admitting the employmentof} the petitioner and manner of the^{accident'He stated that the} petitioner was paid an amount of Rs.3,500/-^{per month towards} wages and Rs. 1O/- per day towards batta. He^{also stated that the} lorry was insured with respondent^{No.2 under policy valid from} 12.12.2002 to ll.l2.2OO3 and^{prayed to dismiss claim against him'}

¶43

Respondent No.2 liled its^{writtenstatementdenyingthe} averments of the petitioner stating^{that the coverage of risk was} subject to policy terms, conditions and^{limitation. Respondent No'2} sought protection under Section^{147 and 148 of the Motor VehicleAct,} 1988 and prayed to dismiss the^{claim against it.}

¶44

In support of his case,^{the petitioner got examinedP.Ws' Iand 2} and got marked Exs.A-l to A-11.^{RespondentNo.2 got examined} R.W. 1 and got marked Ex.B-^{1, in support of their case'}

¶45

7 - After considering the^{pleadingsand evidenceon record, the} Commissioner held that the^{petitioner successfully provedhis case'} Hence, the claim petition was^{partly allowed holding that both the} respon(ents were^jointly and^{severally liable to pay compensationof} \ Rs.69, 1lb/- together rvith^{interestat l2o/o per annum from the date of}

¶46

¶47

MGP,J CMAS 2t6 20lO & 614 2Ot2

¶48

notice to the actual date of realization within 3O davs from the date of receipt of copy of the said order.

¶49

Heard, :oth sides.

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioner i.e., appellant in C.M.A.No.2l6 of 20 10 co:rtended that the Commissioner has not properly determined ttre wages and also the loss of earning capacitv based on the permanent total disablement suffered by the petitioner. It is arso contended thrrt the commissioner erred in not granting interest at l2o/o per Ernnlrm from the date of accident till the date of realization. Hence, he prayed to modify the order passed by the Commissioner by granting just ,end reasonable compensation and interest by allowing the present appeal. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following decis.ons:

¶51

"1.^Manata Devi v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.l

¶52

P. Verrltata Raruana v. Chintaguntla Kumari.z

¶53

Charan Singh v. G. Vittal Reddy.a

¶54

4, New lrdia Assurance Company Ltd. v. Abdul Khader Jilani @ Jilaui.a,

¶55

I l02l (4) (ALD) 49 (SC) 't0r0 (2) ALU 28l ' -"oor (+) .cLn t gl (og r ' 1007 (4) AI-T 607 I DR

¶56

¶57

MGP'J CMAs 216^{2OrO&-6t4]0tz}

¶58

Learned counsel^{for respondentNo'2/insurancecompany r'e"} appellant in^{C.M.A'No.614of 2O12contendedthat the Commissioner} erred in accepting^{the oral and documentary evidenceof P'W'2 i'e''} medical practitioner^{withoutthere beinganY examinationof the} petitioner bY the^{medicalboard. tt is further contended that the} Commissioner^{has committed error in determining the age' wages' loss} of earning disability,^{compensationand also theinterest on} compensation.^{It isalso contended that the policy issued by} respondent No.2^{does not cover the risk of the labourersas no} additional premium^{was paid by respondentNo'1' He also contended} that the petitioner^{failed to establishthe employeeand employer} relationship between^{himself and respondent No' 1'Hence' prayed to} set aside the^{imPugnedorder'}

¶59

Now the^{points for determination are as follows:}

¶60

"1. Whether^{the frndingsof the Commissioner with regard} to .mptoyee^{and eriployerrelationship between the} p"ttf"ri.i ""d^{oppositepariy suffer from any illegality?}

¶61

Whether the^{policy under Ex'B- Icoversthe risk of} f additional labourer^{i.e., the petitionerwithoutpaymento} premium?

¶62

Whether^{the findingsof the Commissionerwith regard} io d.t.r-i.r"tion^{of the compensation and interest tkrereon} suffer from^{anY illegalitY?"}

¶63

¶64

MGP,J CNIAs 216 zOtO & 6t4 2Ot2

¶65

Point Nos .1 to 3:

¶66

This Court has perused the entire evidence and material placed on record. The applicalt got examined himself as p.W. I reiterating the contents of his claim petition. It is his case that he was working as labour on the lorry owned by respondent No.l and earning Rs'5,000/- p:r month and Rs.2o/- per day toward batra. while so, on 14.O2.2OO3, <luring the course and out his employment, r,r,hile he was on the said lorry, he met with accident and suffered injuries. In support of said contentions, he got marked Exs.A_ I to A_ 1 1 In the cross-examinzLtion, he denied the suggestions given by respondent No.2 u,ith regirrd to employee and employer relationship, age, wages, m€u1ner ofacc dent and other aspects.

¶67

The appli< ant got examined p.W.2, who is a doctor. His evidence show's that the petitioner sustained fracture of gth, 10rh and l ru, ribs, dislocation of left shoulder, tenderness spine and tenderness left ankle. The sai<t injuries were grievous in nature and were caused due to blunt object. Due to which the petitioner suffered permanent partial disabilitl,, which was assessed by p.w.2 at 4ovo. In the cross_ examination, he admitted that he was working as Government doctor as on the date of accident. He denied all the other suggestions, which w'ere put to him by respondent No.2.

¶68

¶69

MGP,J CMAs-2^I 6-20^{I 0} -& -61 4 ]O 12

¶70

Respondent No.2^{got examined its Senior Assistantas R'W'1'} The evidence of R.W. I^{showsthat respondent No' Igot insured the} vehicle involved in the accident^{with them and the policy was valid} and effective as on the date^{of accident.He also stated that none of} the injured were traveling^{in the said lorry as the evidenceof P'W'2} reveals that the injuries caused^{by the petitioner are due to blunt} object. It is further^{his case that the FIR was lodged by some} independent^{person, who is said to be eyewitnessto the incidentand} reasons for delay are also^{not furnished.Hou'ever, in the cross-} examination, he admitted^{that for loading and unloading vehicle} labourers are required.^{He deniedthe suggestion that the premium} was paid for the coverage^{of liability of the labourers. He also denied} that since the vehicle^{was goods carrying vehicle respondent No'2 did} not collect any premium^{covering risk of labourers'}

¶71

The primary contention^{ofrespondentNo'2 i'e',insurance} company is that there^{is no employee and employer relationship} between the petitioner^{and respondent No'2' RespondentNo'1 hled} his counter, wherein^{he clearty admitted that the petitionerwas} employed with him.^{The evidenceof the petitioneras P'W'I also} shows that he has^{hled the documents under Exs'A 6 to A-8' which}

¶72

¶73

MGP,J CMAs_216 2010 _&,6t 4 2Ot2

¶74

are copy of |egistration certificate, copy of goods carriage permit and copy of insur-ance policy respectively pertaining to the lorry, which is involved in lhe accident and owned by respondent No.l. Though, respondent l,lo.1 was not examined before the Commissioner, the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner establishes that the petitioner war; working as labourer in the lorry owned by respondent No. 1. Further, respondent No.2-insurance company, except mere contentions has not adduced any proper evidence to disprove the case set up by th a petitioner. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has established his emplo5rment urith respondent No.1.

¶75

It is contended by respondent No.2_insurance compan), that the FIR under Ex.,-1 was lodged by independent person purported to be eye-witness to the incident and there was delay as such the same cannot be accepted. Except, such contention no evidence either oral or documentary is placed by respondent No.2 to disbelieve such documents. Hrrnce, both the said documents can be believed. The said documents establish the occurrence of the accident. It is further contended that the evidence of p.W.2 shows that the injuries are caused by blunt object as such the petitioner was not travelling on lorry and did nor sustain injuries in the accicient. The saici contention

¶76

¶77

MGP,J CMAs 216 2010 &.614 2012

¶78

cannot be accepted as the petitioner was traveling in lorry and a lorry can have many blunt objects, which might have caused the injuries sustained by him in the course of his employment due to the accident. Further, the evidence of P.W.2 along with Ex.A-2 injury certificate clearly establishes that the petitioner sustained injuries. Hence, it is clear that the accident of the lorry owned by respondent No. I occurred on I4.O2.2O03 and the petitioner, who was working as labour in the said lorry sustained injuries in the said accident. As a result of such accident, the petitioner suffered permanent partial disability of 4o% as reflected in Ex.A-10 i.e., the disability certificate.

¶79

l,earned counsel for respondent No.2-insuance company contended that the petitioner was not referred to medical board and the disability certificate under Ex.A-1O issued by p.W.2 cannot be accepted. The disability certificate can be issued by the medical board after properly examining the person, who sustained injuries. It is not essential that all the cases of injuries have to be referred to medical troard for obtaining disability certificate. However, in the crossexamination, P.W.2 admitted that he was working as Government <Loctor on the date of issue of medical certificate. Further, he was examined as P.W.2 before the Commissioner and he deposed in support of case set up by the petitioner. All these circumstances show

¶80

¶81

MGP,J CMAs 2 16_20 l0 _&614.)0 tz

¶82

that the disability certificate under Ex.A-ro issued by p.w.2 can be relied upon and the Commissioner has rightly relied upon such document.

¶83

18' The other contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 i.e., insura,c(] company is that though, the insurance policy under Ex'B-l is subr;isting as on the date of the accident, the poricy does not cover the risk of labourers, as no additional premium was paid by the respondent No.l. Thus, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation.

¶84

In this legard, it is apt to refer to the decision of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Thukaram Adappas of the High Court of Karnataka, wherein it was held as follows:

¶85

'ln Ashe Rani's case, Devi Reddy Konda Reddy,s case, Ajit 5lT"I " case and Baljir Kaur's cise, the Suprerire Court has held tha- the legislative intent was to prohiLit goods vehicle from car:ying any passenger. Carrying pa."..rgJ" in a goods vehicle i:; not contemplated undei tfi. e"t. T*hough tne nct lnandate^{s compulsory coverage against death} oi or bodily tnJury t(' any passenger of a public service vehicle and compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in goods v.ehicle, the liabiliry was limitid to liabiliry under rhe Workmer's Compensation Act, 1923. The legiislature never intended to cover the risk of aly passenger in loods carriage. The .prenrium paid under the niw aciwoulj only coveia third pany, any passenger of a public service vehicle as also the owne^- of the goods or his authorised representative and not any passenger carried in a goods vehicle whether for hire

5 2007 ACJ t497

MGP'J

CMAs 216 2Ol0 & 614 2012

¶90

or reward or otherwise. However, once such a policy is taken to paying the premium, statutorily the empioyees of the insured such as driver, conductor, ticket collector and who are carried in the goods carriage, are also covered to the extent of the liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923."

¶91

Further, in P. Venkata Ramana v. Chintaguntla Kumario, the High Court for the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh held that putting a vehicle to use, the drivers, irrespective of the nature of the vehicle, conductors in public service vehicle and the coolies or labourers, engaged on a goods carriage are the essential operators and it is they, who become instrumental in operating the vehicle

¶92

In, Oriental lnsurance Company Limited v. Meena VariyalT, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:

¶93

"Uninfluenced by authorities, we find no difficulty in understanding this provision as one providing that the policy must insure an owner against any liability to a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place, and against death or bodily injury to any passenger ol a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of vehicle in a public place. The proviso clarihes that the policy shall not be required to cover an employee of the insured in respect of bodily injury or death arising out of and in the course of his employment. Then, an exception is provided to the last foregoing to the effect that the policy must cover a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in respect of the death or bodily injury to an employee who is engaged in driving t1le vehicle or who serves as a conductor in a public service vehicle or an emplo_vee who travels in the vehicle of the employer carrying goods if it is a

¶94

6 20r o (2) ALD 28r

¶95

7 (2OO7l 5 SCq428 -\

¶96

¶97

MGP,J CMAs 216 ZOIO & 6t4 2012

¶98

goods oarriage. Section 149(l), which casts an obligation on an insrlrer to satisfy an award, also speaks only of award in respect of such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 147 (being a liabil ty covered by the terms of the policy). This provision cannot therefore be used to enlarge the liability if it does not exist in terms of Section 147 of the Act. 14. The object of the insisterrce on insurance under Chapter XI of the Act thus seems to bc to compulsorily cover the liability relating to their pcrson or properties of third parties and in respect of employr:es of the insured employer, the liability that may arise under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in respect of the driver, the conductor and the one carried in a goods v rhicle carrying goods."

¶99

22. In, National fnsutance Company Limited v. Prembai Patela,

¶100

the Hon'ble St preme Court held as under:

¶101

"15. Though the aforesaid decision has been rendered on Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 but the principlt: underlying therein will be fully applicabte here also. It is thu.s clcar that in case the owner of the vehicle wants the liability of the insurance company in respect of death of or bodil y injury to any such employee as is described in clauses (a) or (b) or (c) of proviso (i) to Section 147(1Xb should not be restricted to that under the Workmen's Act but should be more or unlimited, he must take such a policy by making payment of extra premium and the poli:y should also contain a clause to that effect. However, where the policy mentions "a policy for Act Liability" or "Acr Liability", the liability of the insurance compan) qua the employees as aforesaid would not be unlimiterl but would be timitcd to that arising under the Workmerr's Act."

¶102

23. In, Uniterl India Assurance Company Limited v. Shandoorapu

¶103

Gangawae the Single Judge of this Court, while dealing with the

¶104

8 AIR 2005 SC 2337

¶105

e Common judgmen , dt. 09.03.2023, CMA (SR) Nos

¶106

¶107

MGP.J CMAs 216 2010 & 614 2012

¶108

liability of insurance company, in respect of death of a driver in^{case of} the policy taken by the owner of the vehicle as 'Act Liability' without payment of extra premium, has dismissed the appeals filed by the insurance company by taking similar view, which was observed in Prembai Patel case (Bth cited supra) and held that liability of insurance company qua ernployees of the owner could not be unlimited but it would be limited to that arising under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. It was further observed that in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Satpal Singh Muchalto the Honourable Supreme Court held that statutorily the employees of the insured such as driver, conductor and ticket collector, who are carried in the goods carriage, are covered to the extent of the liability under the Act without payment of any additional premium. Though, the judgment of Satpal Singh's case was over ruled by the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Asha^Ranitt. However, it is to be seen that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in^Prembai Patel's case (supra), which is subsequent to Asha Rani's⁽¹ lth^cited supra), held that where the policy mentions "a policy for Act^Liability" or "Act Liability", the liability of the insurance company^{qua the}

¶109

4208, 4214 aod 4220 of 2006 IO 2OOO AGJ t SC

¶110

¶111

MGP,J CMAs 216 Z0t0 & 614 Z0l2

¶112

employees as aforesaid would not be unlimited but would be limited to that arising under the Workmen's Act.

¶113

In view ,rf the above discussion and considering the principle laid down in the above said cases and since the petitioner is not a gratuitous passenger and as he is an employee rendering his services to responderrt No.1 under employee-employer relationship, the contention of the learned counsel for respondet No.2 that the policy does not cover the risk of labourers in view of non-payment of additional premium, is unsustainable. Therefore, respondent No.2 is liable to inderr.nify respondent No.1 i.e., owner of the lorry. Hence, the contention of ,he learned counsel for respondent No.2 i.e., insurance company is rej ected.

¶114

Coming to the assessment of loss of earning disability, the evidence of P.\V.2 and Ex.A-lO disability certificate shows that p.W.2 based on the injuries sustained by the petitioner determined the perma-rrent partial disability at 4Oo/o. The Commissioner after considering the said evidence assessed the loss of earning capacity at 25%. Learned counsel for the petitioner i.e., injured contended that the Commissioner ought to have taken 4oo/o as loss of earning capacity while determining the compensation. Learned counsel for respondent

¶115

¶116

MCP,J CMAs 216 20lO & 614^2Ol2

¶117

No.2-insurance company contended that 25o/o loss of earning^capacity assessed by the Commissioner is on the higher side.

¶118

The petitioner sustained injuries of fracture of 8th^lOth and^{1 lth} ribs, dislocation of left shoulder, tenderness of spine and tenderness^of Ieft ankle. The said injuries were grievous in nature. In the^said circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that^the Commissioner, who is right person to assess the loss of^earning capacity, has rightly assessed the loss of earning capacity at^25o/o based on the seriousness of injuries and the disability certificate under Ex.A-10 issued by P.W.2. The same is^just and^{reasonable and} interference of this Court is unwarranted.

¶119

27 . Coming to the contention with regard to age of the petitioner,^the petitioner states that he was 2O years old at the time of accident.^The disability certificate under Ex.A- 1O issued by P.W.2 after examining the injuries sustained by the petitioner also shows that he^{was 20} years old. Hence, the Commissioner has rightly taken the age of^the petitioner as 20 years, at the time of the accident and the^same requires no interference by this Court.

¶120

2A. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that^respondent No. 1 1n {is^{counter has clearly stated that he was payingan arnount}

¶121

¶122

MGP,J CMAs 216 2010 & 614 2012

¶123

of Rs.3,SOO/- per month to the petitioner towards wages and Rs. 10/towards batl.a per day. However, the Commissioner erred in considering l.he minimum wages to determine the compensation. lrarned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the Commissioner determined the wages at Rs.2,057/- based on the minimum wa6;es paid to the labourer and the same is on higher side.

¶124

The evidence of P.W. I shows that he was earning an amount of Rs.5,0O0/- per month towards wages and Rs.2O/, per day towards batta. The colrnter liled by respondent No.l shows that he was paying an amount of Rs.3,5OO/- per month towards wages and Rs. 1O/_ per day towards batta to the petitioner. In view of two fold contentions, the Commissioner has taken into consideration minimum wages of Rs.2,057/- as monthly wages of the petitioner r.r,hile determining compensation. This Court is of the considered opinion that the said assessment by the commissioner requires no interference by this Court. The Commissioner has granted just and reasonable compensation erfter determining all the aspects and interference of this Court is unwar,-anted.

¶125

MGP,J CMAS 216 2010 & 614 2Ol2

¶126

, I

¶127

¶128

Insofar as rate of interest is concerned, it is apt to refer to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in P. Meenaraj v. P

¶129

Adigurusamyrz, wherein it is held as follows:

¶130

" 1O. As regards the date o[ commencement of the liability of interest, the learned counscl for the appetlant appears to be right that even in the case o[ Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra), this Court has not laid down the law that the intcrest would be payable only 30 days after thc accident. In our view too, the said statutory period of 30 days does not put a moratorium over the liability of interest. Such interest is relatcd with the amount o[ compensation receivable by thc claimant and there appears no reason for not allowing intercst for 3O days from the date of accident. In fact, in the referred decisions too, this Court has allowed interest from the date o[ accidcnt. That being the position, the questioned part o[ the order of the High Court calls for interference and the same is modified to the extent that the appellant would be entitled to interest from the date of accident."

¶131

In view of the principle laid dou.n in the above said case, it is evident that the petitioner is entitled for interest at L2Vo per annum on the compensation amount from the date of accident till date of deposit and not from the date of notice to the actual date of realization as trcld by the Commissioner. Hence, this Court is inclined to award interest at l2o/o per annum on the compensation amount from the date of accident till the date of deposit.

¶132

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.614 of 2Ol2 is dismissed and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2 16 of 20lO is partly

¶133

12 Civil Appeal No 2O9 ot 2022, decidcd on (t January 2022

¶134

¶135

MGP,J CMAs 2t6 2010 & 614 ZOtz

¶136

I I

¶137

allowed by .nodifying the impugned order passed by the Commissioner to the exter t of granting interest rate at l2ok per annum from the date of accident till the date of deposit. In all other aspccts, the order of the Commi:rsioner stalds conhrmed. There shall bc no order as to costs. Miscr:llaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶138

sD/- K.SRtNIVASAFAO JOINT REGIS,fRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶139

To, 1 The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner _^{of Labour, Nizamabad. (with records,if any)} 2 One CC to Sri. K. SARALA MAHENDER ReOOy, Advocale [OpUC] 3. One CC to Sri KATTA LAXMI PRASAD, Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CD Copies

Ntb

HIGH COURT

DATED "2211112023

COMMC)N JUDGMENT CMA.Ncrs.216 of 2010 & 614 of 2012

¶146

<br>/ 1,..'
\ ,\
i 7:
\ 2 1 i[B 2t2{ -!c'_,
i *
?ATc