Partly allowed

E. Anjamma and 6 Others v. Md. Habeebuddin and Another

Telangana HC20 Nov 2023CMA/65/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed part of an appeal against the Commissioner's dismissal of a workmen's compensation claim for the death of a driver. The Court held the applicant was an employee, fixed compensation at Rs.2,91,960 based on age-adjusted wages, and ordered interest at 12% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Compensation of Rs.2,91,960 payable by all respondents jointly and severally, with interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident till deposit.

E. Anjamma and 6 Others Vs Md. Habeebuddin… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY^{THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

CIVIL MISCE LLANEOU^{S APPEALNO : 65 0F 2010}

¶7

AppealunderSection30Workmen'sCompensationAct,l923'againstthe order dated 16.04.2009^{in W.C.No.48 ol 2OO4 passed by the commissioner for} Workmen's Compensation^{and Deputy Commissionerof LabourMahabubnagar'} Between:

¶8

E. Aniamma,^{Wo.Late K. Sharanaiah,Occ: Household,PJoH No 26-1-53} 'Newi Veerannapet,^Mahabubnagar

¶9

E. Jvothi, W/o.^{Late K Sharanaiah,Occ: Household,R/o H No 26-1-53} *New) VeerannaPet, Mahabubnagar

¶10

E. Anitha, D/o.^{Late K. Sharanaiah,Occ: Stud€nt, R/o' H'No 26-1-53'New)} VeerannaPet,^Mahabubnagar

¶11

E. Arun, S/o.^{Late K. Sharanaiah, Occ: Student, R"/oH No 26-1-53'New)} VeerannaPet,^Mahabubnagar

¶12

E. Omkar,^{S/o. K. Sharanaiah, Minor rep.by PetitionerNo 1 R:/o' H'No 26-1-} 53^.New) Veerannapet,^Mahabubnagar

¶13

6.E.Varalaxmi,D/o'Latesharanaiah,Minorrep',byPetitionerNo.2Fl./o.H.No' 26-1-53'New) Veerannapet,^Mahabubnagar

¶14

E. Shankar,^{S/o. Late K. Sharanaiah,Minor rep',by PetitiorrerNo 2 Rl/o'} H.No. 2&1-53^{*New) Veerannapet, Mahabubnagar}

¶15

,^{...APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS}

¶16

as Majors, vide^{court orderdated04'02"t0 in} tffillillL"i;ol.13ff'*",

¶17

Appellant No.5 rep^{by AppellantNo. 1 AppellantNo' 627 Rep', by Appt' No' 2}

¶18

R1- Set aside vide^{Court Order dated 3l} '08.2016 AND

¶19

Md. Habeebuddin,^{S/o Khaja Moinuddin,Occ: Lorry Owner'Rl/o H No 19-5-} 44lN3, Asadbaba^{Nagar, Kishan Bagh,}

¶20

The Divisional^{Manager, The New lndia Assurance CompanyLimit€d D'i{o'} - itii, ll Fb.t,-na6gniicciurt-s, Basheerbagh, Hvd€rabad s00 00'l'

¶21

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶22

¶23

: SRl. M. HAMSA SRl. M. HAMSA HAMSA^RAJ

¶24

: SRl. M. HAMSA SRl. M. HAMSA HAMSA^RAJ Counsel for^APPellant Counsel for the^{ResPondentNo' 2} : MS. P. SATYAMANJULA Counsel for the^{Respondent No'1} : NONE APPEARED

¶25

The Court made^{the following:}

¶26

THE IIoNOURABLE SMT cwILMI F,OUS

EM.G

ARSINI

Ito. 650F2oro

JU NT:

Aggrieved by the order dated 16.04.2009 IN W.C.Case No. 48 of 2OO4 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen,s Compensation and Depury Commissioner of Labour, Mahabubnagar, the applicants have filed the present appeal.

¶32

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

¶33

The brief facts of tJle case are that the applicants who are the wives and children of late Sharanaiah (hereinafter referred as 'the deceased,) have frled an application under the provisions of Workmen,s Compensation Act, 1923 (amended as Employees, compensation Act) (for short ActJ claiming compensation of 'he Rs.4,0O,O00/- for the death of t}re deceased in the accident that occurred on 3O/31.03.2004, alleging that the deceased was employed by the opposite part5r No. I as driver on the medium goods vehicle bearing No. Ap 22 T 3669, which was insured with opposite party No. 2. It is stated that on the fateful day, on the instrucdons of opposite party No. 1, employer, the deceased was

¶34

MGP,J cMA-65-2010

¶35

¶36

proceeding^{as driver on the said vehicl'e'ownedby opposite} party^{No. 1, employer' insuredwith oppositeparty No' 2' from} Bangalore^{toNeelagiri' ln theinterveningnightof} 3O/31.O3.20O4,^{at about 01:30a'm'' when he reachednear} Chikkori^{gate, Gundlupet' the driverof the said vehiclelost his} control^{over the vehicleand hit a tr€e towards left side of the} road.^{As a result, the deceased who wassleeping t]'e cabinas} spare^{driversuccumbed to the grievousinjuries'Based on the} complaint,^{the Police' GundlupetPolice Station'registereda} case in^{Crime No' 82 of 2OO4 ' Accordingto the applicants' the} 36^{years and earning salaryof} deceased^{was aged about} from^{batta of Rs'10O/-Per daY as} Rs.4,OOO/- Per^{month apart} driverundertheemploymentofoppositepartyNo'1'employer and^{usedto contribute entireearningsfor the welfareof the} family.^{Due to the sudden demise of the deceased' the} applicants^{l'ost ttreir onlybreadwinnerand love and affecdon'} Hence,^{theapplicantshave claimed compensationof} Rs.4,0O,OOO/-^{agarnst the opposite party Nos' Iatd 2' who are} jointly and^{severallyliableto pay the compensation'}

¶37

4.BeforetheCommissioner,theoppositepartyNo.l remained^{ex parte and whereasthe oppositeparty No' 2 frled} counter^{denying the avermentsof the application suchas}

¶38

¶39

MOP,J cMA-65 20to

¶40

employee_employer reladonship, salary, age of the deceased and manner of accident. He further contended that unless and undl it is proved that the deceased died during the course of his employment arld having valid and effective driving licence, the .Insurance Company is not Iiable to pay the compensadon. He Iastly contended that the claim is excessive and exorbihnt and prayed to dismiss the application.

¶41

On beha_lf of the applicants, pW. I was examined and Exs.A.l to A.6 were marked. Ex.A. I is the certified copy of FIR, Ex.A.2 is the certified copy of inquest, Ex.A.3 is the scene of offence, Ex.A.4 is the ce copy of PME report' Ex'A's is the certified copy of nnu, ;to"o :eport, Ex.A.6 is the certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A.7 ir photosrat copy or o",,* ]rlTr::':":':..o"*.' ";,.; driving licence. on beha_lf of opposite party No. 2, RW. I was examined and Ex.B.l, insuralce policy, was marked.

¶42

The Commissioner ajlter considering the evidence record, both oral and on documentar5r, has dismissed the application.

¶43

Aggrieved by the r cismissal order by the commissioner, the applicants have fired the present appeal.

¶44

MGP,J cMA-6s-2010

¶45

¶46

Heard both^{sides and perusedthe record'}

¶47

g. lrarned counsel^{for the applicants contended that though} the applicants^{proved theircase by adducingExs'A'1to A'9 and} examining^{PW. 1, the Commissioner has erroneously dismissed} the application.^{Hence, prayedto allow the appeal by awarding} reasonable^{comPensatlon'}

¶48

lo.Ontheotherhand,learnedStandingCounselforthe opposite^{party No. 2, lnsurance Company' sought to sustainthe} Commissioner^{contendingthat} impuglred^{order ofthe} avocation^{of the deceased,tJre} considering^{the age and} Commissionerhasrightlydismissedtheapplicationandthe same need.s^{no interferenceby this Court'}

¶49

Now, the^{pointfor determination is as follows:}

¶50

are. entitled fo' "Wetter^{tlleaPPliconts} com1ensation^as Praged^for?"

¶51

Point::

¶52

This^{Court perusedthe entire record and foundthat the} applicant^{No.1,first wife of the deceased'was examined herself} she reiterated^{the averments} as PW.^{1. In her chief examination'} dre deceased,^{in orderto} of application^{and dePosedthat} dischargehisdutiesasdriverundertheemploymentofopposite

¶53

¶54

MGP,J cMA 65-2010

¶55

parEy No. 1, was proceeding in the said vehicle. In support of her claim, she hled Exs.A. I to A.9. Though pW. I was cross examined at length nothing was elicited to discredit her statements.

¶56

On behalf of opposite party No. 2, its administrative ofhcer, was examined as RW. I and Ex.B.l, insurance policy, was marked. Ex.B. 1, insurance policy, clearly discloses that the said vehicle was insured with the opposite party No. 2 which was valid from 19.12.2OO3 to 1g. 12.20O4. Further, RW. l, in his chief examination, admitted that the policy is in force as on the date of the accident and premium of Rs.SO/- was paid to cover the risk of two employees.

¶57

A perusal of Exs.A.l to A.9 makes it abundantly clear that the deceased succumbed to ttre grievous injuries in the accident that occurred on 3O/31.03.2OO4 near Chikkori Bagh, Gundlupet while discharging his duties as driver under the employment of opposite party No. l. Moreover, except the oral statements, the opposite party No. 2, Insurance company, has not adduced any cogent evidence to prove that the deceased did not die during and in the course of the employrnent. Hence, in view of the evidence available on record and the deceased is an

¶58

MGP,J cMA-65-2010

¶59

¶60

employee^{rendering his services to the oppositepartyNo} I relationshiP,^{this Court is of the} under^{emPloYee-emPloYer} considered^{opinion that the applicantsareentitled for the} comPensation^{underthe Act'}

¶61

In^{so far as the quantum of compensationis concemed'} according^{to the applicants'the deceasedwas aged 36 years} and earning^{wages of Rs'4'OOO/- per month as driver underthe} employment^{of oppositeparty No' 1' employer'However'} considering^{the prevailing minimum rates of wages at the} relevant^{point of time' this Court is inclined to fix the income of} the deceased^{at Rs'3'O0O/-per montJ:t ' ln view of the Schedule} IVoftheAct,therelevantfactorfortheageofthedeceased being^{36 years old is '194'64''Thus' applying the relevant factor} '194.64',^{the total compensationworks out to Rs'2'91'96O/-} (Rs.3,OOO/-^{x 50/ 10o x 194'64)'}

¶62

t6.^{Insofaras interest is concerned'as per the decisionof} Apex^{Court in P' Meenarol rt' P' Adlguruscmg' and Shobha} and others^{v' The Chairman'Viothalrao ShindeSahakari} Sakhar^{KarkhanaLimltedand others2'the applicantsare} entitled^{for interestatl2o/o per annurn on the compensation}

¶63

decided^{on 6 Jantary2022} I Civil Appeal No^{2Q9 of 2Q22}

¶64

'^{zozz131 esr.t}

MGP,J. cMA-65_20lO

l I I l

amount from the date of accident till the date of deposit. 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.

¶69

17 . Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appea_l is partly allowed by awarding the compensation of Rs.2,91,96O/- to be payable by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The compensation amount shall carSr interes t at l2o/o per annum from the date of accident till the date of deposit. On such deposit, the applicants are entitled to withdraw the amount without furnishing any securit5r. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶70

Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, sha-ll stand closed.

¶71