Dismissed

New India Assurance Co.Ltd v. Ramana and Another

Telangana HC8 Nov 2023CMA/642/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil miscellaneous appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by an insurance company challenging compensation awarded to a cleaner injured in a road accident. The court held that the evidence failed to disprove the employment relationship or that the employee was driving the vehicle.

What did the court decide?

Civil miscellaneous appeal dismissed confirming the order of the Commissioner dated 12.08.1994.

New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs Ramana and… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTTCE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶5

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 642 0F²⁰⁰⁹

¶6

Appeal Under Section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated 121811994 made in W.C. Case No.94/93 on the file of the Court of the C.W.C and A.C.L. I Circle,^{R.R. District.}

¶7

Between:

¶8

New lndia Assurance Co.Ltd., Ssurya Towers, Paradgrounds Road, Balanagar, Hyderabad.

¶9

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

¶10

AND

¶11

Ramana, Sio. Ramulu, R/o.1-37, Suraram Village, Qutubullapur^Mandal, Rana Reddy District.

¶12

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶13

S. Ramesh, Rl/o.11-67, Sumitranagar, IDPL Colony, Balanagar, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. T. RAMULU

¶16

Counsel forthe Respondents: NONE APPEARED

¶17

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶18

¶19

¶20

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRTYADARSINT

¶21

CTVTL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.642 of 2OO9

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

I . The present civil miscellaneous appeal has been directed against order dated r2.og.rgg4 in w.c.No.94 of 1993 on the fire of the Commissioner for Workmen,s Compensation and Assistarrt Commissioner for Labour, Circle_I, Rangareddy District (hereinafter referred to as^.the Commissioner), whereunder, the claim of

¶24

respondent No.l herein seeking compensation for injuries sustained by him in accident on 23.06.1992 was allowed granting compensation of Rs.73,246/_. Aggneved by the same, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is frled at the instance of the insurarce company i.e., opposite party No.2 before the Commissioner.

¶25

The appellant herein is opposite party No.2, respondent No.I herein is applicant and respondent No.2 herein is opposite party No. 1 before the Commissioner. For the sake of convenience, the parLies are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Commissioner.

¶26

The brief facts of the case of the applicant are that he was employed as cleaner on the DCM truck bearing registration No.AHT 1491, which is owned by opposite party No.t. On, 23.06.1992

¶27

¶28

¶29

MGP,J c.l^,4.A 642 2009

¶30

while he was on duty, the said vehicle met with al accident near Bhuvanavaram Village. As a result, the applicalt sustained multiple fracture injuries. The appticant was about 2O years at the time of accident and he was earning an amount of Rs. 1,200/- per month towards wages. Hence, he f,rled the present claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 1,00,0OO/- for the injuries sustained by him.

¶31

In spite of service of notice, opposite party No.l did not appear before the Commissioner and he was set ex parte. Opposite party No.2 hled their counter denying the claim of the apptcant. They specifically denied the employee and employer relationship of the deceased and opposite party No.1. They also denied wages and age of the deceased and that the accident occurred during the course of employment. Finally, they denied their liability and prayed to dismiss the claim petition of the applicant.

¶32

In support of his case, the applicant got examined himself as A.W. I ard got marked Exs.A-l to A-7. Opposite party No.2 did not got examined any witness, but got marked Ex.B- 1, in support of its case.

¶33

MGP,J cMA 642 2009

¶34

¶35

After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Commissioner held that the applicant has successfully proved his case. Hence, the claim petition was ailowed holding that both the opposite parties were jointly and severally liable and granted an amount of Rs.73,246/- towards compensation to the applicant.

¶36

Heard both sides.

¶37

8' Mr' T. Ramulu, Advocate, the rearned counser for the appellant-insurance company mainly contended that the applicant was working as clealer of the vehicle. However, at the time of accident, he was driving the vehicle involved in the accident and due to which the accident occurred. Such an act of the applicant was unauthorized act and the injuries sustained by him were not during the course and out of employment. Hence, he cannot be treated as employee of opposite party No.l to grant compensation. It is his further contention that as per the records of Motor vehicre Inspector, the vehicre involved in the accident was registered in the name of one Gopal, but policy was obtained to the vehicle in the name of opposite party No.l, who is not having any insurable interest in the propert5r.

¶38

¶39

MGP,J
cMA 642 2009 1.li,

¶40

9 In spite of service^{of notice, none appeared and there is no} representation for^{both the respondents i'e', the applicantand} opposite party^No.1.

¶41

Now, the^{point for determination is as follows:}

¶42

"Whether the^{applicant is entitled for compensation} as grarted bY^{the Commissioner?"}

¶43

Point:-

¶44

This Court^{has perused the entireevidenceplaced on record} by the parties^{before the Commissioner'Except' statingthat the} applicant is^{working as cleaner, but drove the vehicleandcaused} accident, the^{insurancecompany i'e', oppositeparty No'2 has not} adduced any^{cogentor convincingevidenceto prove the same'} Furthermore, admittedly,^{it is evident from the documentsrelied} upon by the applicant^{that he is working as cleanerunderopposite} party No.1. Admittedly,^{the driver of vehicle Mr' Rajalingamalso} died in tJle^{same accident on sPot'}

¶45

Absolutely,^{there is no evidenceplaced on record by the} appellant/opposite^{partyNo'2 that the applicantwas drivingthe} vehicle at the time^{of accident and not the driver of the vehicle'The} *-employee^{and employerrelationshipbetween the applicantand} opposite party No.l is^{not disputed'When,the said relationshipis}

MGP,J cMA 642 2009

t /

I )

established and when it is not proved that the applicant was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, the contention of the rearned counsel for appellant/opposite parfy No.2 that the applicant drove the vehicle without any authorization ald caused accident is unmerited and the same is rejected.

¶51

13' It is further contended that the vehicre invorved in the accident was registered in the name of one Gopal, as per the records of Motor Vehicle Inspector, but lnsurance policy was obtained to the vehicle in the name of opposite party No.1, who is not having any insurable interest in the property. The said stand was not taken by the rnsurance comPany l.e ., opposite party No.2 before the Commissioner. Howsysl, the important thing that has to be considered is whether the vehicle is having valid insurance policy, in force, as on the date of the accident and it is not relevant on whose name the policy is taken. The relevant factor is that the insurance policy has to be made on the vehicle. Furthermore, except, ora.l contention, there is no such plea taken by the insurance company i.e., opposite party No.2 before the Commissioner and no evidence had been adduced to support the same.

MGP,J cMA 642 2009 t

|4.Comingtotheestablishmentofoccurrenceofaccidentand injuries, Ex.A-7 medical^{disabilitycertifred frled by the applicant} clearly shows that^{the accident was occurredon 23'06'1992' Due} to said accident,^{the applicant sufferedpermanentpartial disability} of 650/o. Considering^{the nature of the injuriesand the disability'} the Commissioner^{has rightly awarded compensation tothe} applicant and^{interferenceof this Court is not required' In the said} circumstances,^{the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable} to be dismissed.

¶56

In the result,^{the civil miscellaneous appealis dismissedby} confrrmingorderdated12.oS.|gg4inW.C.No.94of1993onthefile oftheCommissionerforWorkmen'sCompensationandAssistant Commissioner for^{Labour, I-Circle,Rangareddy District' There shall} be no order^as to^{costs. Miscellaneousapplications pending' if any'} shall stand^closed.

¶57

SD/- K. SRINIVASA^RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶58

To, 1 The Commissioner^{for Wowkmen Compensation and Assistant Commissioner} of Labour^{Circle l, HYderabad'}

¶59

Z. O*-CC^{to Sri. T. RAMULU,Advocate [OPUC]}

¶60

Two^{CD CoPies}

HIGH COURT

DArED:O811112023

JUDGMENT

e STATS
{
o
11 ,l[N 2l?[ -b
otro +
*
t DES rJ C ?9

¶65

CMANo.642 of 2009

¶66

APPEAL IS DISMISSED

¶67

,
7p

New India Assurance Co.Ltd v. Ramana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

New India Assurance Co.Ltd v. Ramana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt.Anubham Pushpavathi and 5 Ors.

The Manager, National Insurancecompany Limtied, Allahabad. Vs Hridaylal Misra and Another

K Pentaiah (Died) Vs the Joint Collector

K.Radhika Vs the South Central Railway

M/S. National Insurance Company Vs Md. Ghouse Moinoddin and Another

M/S.Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt.a.Sowndarya and 3 Ors.