Dismissed

National Insurance Company Limited, Secunderabad. v. O. Manemma and 3 Others

Telangana HC10 Nov 2023CMA/848/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, the High Court held that questions regarding the employment relationship and accident specifics are factual matters for the Commissioner. Finding the Commissioner's award free from perversity or illegality, the Court dismissed the appeal filed by the insurer.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed without costs.

National Insurance Company Limited… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY. TI.]E TENTI] DAY OF NOVEIMBER

¶3

Ir'JC) IIJOUSI\ND /\ND l}VENl-Y THREE PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 848 OF ?013

¶5

Appeal Under Section^--?0 \A/orkmen's Compensation Act, 1923, against the Order daterj 26.09.2003 in V/ C No 248 of 2004 passed by the Commissioner for Workrnen's Compensation and Assrstant Commissioner of Labour - T. Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavan; R.T.C.^'X' Roads, at Hyderabad.

¶6

Between:

¶7

NatioDal lnsirrance^jorr,parry i-imited. Secunderabad., rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Manager, Natiorral insurance Company Limited, D.O.ll, 9293. Swapnalok Complex,

¶8

...APPELLANT/OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2

¶9

AHD

¶10

O. Manemma, W/o late Balaraju C/o Sri V.V.Ramana, Advocate H.No.^Flat nO 55, 1st floor, Lingala Complex, Dalsukhnagar,

¶11

llhandr?l. rma r/ilo Balaiair C/o Sri V.V.Ramana. Advocate H No. Flat

¶12

i l'-;.i5 l::t llo-)r. L,ricara^i.lcriplex, Dilsuxhnagat,

¶13

3 O.Balaiah S/.o late Balaraju C/o Sri V.V.Ramana, Advocate H.No.^Flat nO.55. 1st floor, Lingala Complex, Dilsukhnagar,

¶14

RESPON DENT/APPLICANTS

¶15

4 N. Penchalarah Nardu Sic Pt:ddapenchala Naidu Rio Plot no. 34, D.Nagar, Hayathnagar,

¶16

...RESPONDENT/OPPOSITE PARTY^NO.1

¶17

(Responrlent No.4 disrliissod for default vide.co.dt.14.1 2.2O'l1l

¶18

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2005( CMAMP. NO:2724 OF 2005)

¶19

Petitio;- unJer Secticn 151 CPC craying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the a(ld:;rvii iiled in suc-:c.l cf the^petition. the l-ligh Court may^{be pleased grant} interim stay of all fultner proceedings including withdrawal of the Deposited amount in pursuance of the order dated 26.9.2005 made in W,C.No.24812004,^on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and^Assistant Com..nissioner of LaocLrr-!. ai T.AnJaiah Karmika Sankeshama^{Bhavan, RTCX} R oad _r. l'!^.-, 1e,::t l,.,,1,f i:e r' : i nc^j I Sa i:,itl Cf rll'./A

¶20

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. T RAMULU Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARE The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.848 OF 2013

¶22

JUDGMEN?:

¶23

Aggiieved by the order dated 26.O9.2OO5-rn W.C.No.248 of 2004 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour - I, Hyderabad, the opposite party No.2/ Insurance Company has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶24

For the sake of conveniencc, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per Lheir array before the learned Assistant Commissioner (hereinafter^r.,r'il[ be referred as "Commissioner").

¶25

The brief facts of the case are that the applicants being the wife and parents of deceased by name Mr.Balaraju,^have frled an application under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (now amended as Employee's Compensation Act, 19231 claiming compensation of Rs.5,OO,OOO/- alleging that the deceased, who was aged about 23 years, was employed as u,orker under the employment of opposite party No. I on a monthly salary of^{Rs.4,OOO/-apart} from Rs.50/- per day towards batta on the Tractor -.Trolley bearing No.AP 29 T O I 18, u'hich u'as insured with opposite party No.2. On 26.11.2004 at about 1 OO PM the husband^of

¶26

¶27

MGP,J cMA 848 2013

¶28

applicant No. I was proceeding on the above said tractor from Abdullapurmet towards Ibrahimpatnam via Koheda Village. . On nearing the outskirts o[ Koheda village, the husband of : appl-rcant No.l lost control over his vehicle, which over turned and thereby the husband of applicant No.1 died on the spot. A case in Crime No.557 of 2OO4 of Hayathnagar Police Station was registered for the offence under Section 3O4-A of the Indian Penal Code. Since the insurancc policy was subsisting as on the date of the accident, the opposite party No. I being the owner of the Tractor - Trolley and opposite party No.2 being the insurer of the Tractor - Trotley, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.5,0O,OOO/- to the applicants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased.

¶29

The opposite party Nos. I and, 2 filed their respective counters, wherein opposite party No. i admitted the cmployment of the deceased under him, wages and age of the deceased. It was further contended that if any compensation is awarded, it is the opposite party No.2, who is liable to pay the same and thus, prayed to dismiss the claim against the opposite party No.2. On the other hand, opposite party No.2 denied the avermcnts of the application including employee-employer rclationship between deceased and opposite party No. I, wage and ages of the

¶30

MGP,J cMA 848 2013

¶31

-l

¶32

deceased, driving license o[ the driver of the vehicle etc., and th$, prayed to dismiss the claim applica(ion.

¶33

.,,&f*. the learned Commissioner, on beEffoft he

¶34

appllcanfs , AWI was examined ancl Exs.Al to AS were marked. Exs.Al to1 A4 are FIR, inquest .panchanama, PME report, tegistration certihcate and insurance policy. On behalf of dpposite paaties, no evidence was adduced, however, Ex.Rl Insurance .Policy of the vehicle u,as marked. The learned Commissioner after considcring the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, by cietermining the wages of the dCceased as Its.4,OOO/- per month and by applying the relevant factor '213.57' for the age of deceased beiog 27 years, has awarded compe nsation of Rs.4,27 ,l4O I -.

¶35

6: Dissatisfied by the compbnsation awarded by the Coiirniissioirei, the Opposite Party No.2 has liled the present trijbeal to det aside the impugned order.

¶36

?. Heatd both sides and perused the record.

¶37

8: The mairi bontention of lcarned counsel for the applicant iS that as thbre was no employce and employer relationship tetweeri deceaSed and the opposite party No.l and that the diplicants did not hle driving license of the deceased to prove

¶38

{

¶39

M(iP-J cMA 848 2013

¶40

that the deceased was the driver of the tractor and trailer. As seen from Exs.Al and A2, the heceased was travelling ,1. with one K. Krishna as on the alte of theiaccident. So, th t ptrsbn to Speak about the facts pf the ease ls K. Krishn whose Ireln the statement was recorded by the Police concqrned, wh I the said K. Krishna supported^'the version of 4pplicants \wa; deceased was driving the vehiclc as on the date of:the accident. Admittedly, the Tractor.:' and Troltey belongs to opposr te party No.1, who has admitted in his counter that the decea6cd was employed as driver rrnder him and_that the decryed met with ! the accident. .,Thus, the version of the apfica.rt" is being corroborated by the documentary evideng€ as well as the averments of counter aff-rdavit filed by ttie opposite party No. I . Ii at all the driver of the tractor is not^'having any license, then '; certainly, the Police co.rce.g.tl'ough t to have registered the case with regard to the alleggd incident under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act apa;:e:'from Section 3O4-A of the Indian Penal code. But there,'i6 no such instance in the case on hand. On the oth,ei hand, the Opposite Party No.2 failed to establish their contentions by adducing any evidence except hling copy of insurance policy. In order to ascertain as to whether the deceased was having valid driving license or not, the appropriate remedy is to examine RTA officials. But no such

¶41

MGP,J cMA 848 20l3

¶42

¶43

efforts were initiated on behalf of the opposite party No.2. It is settled law that one, who asserts, has to establish those assertions by cogent and convincing evidence. In p. Narasimha

¶44

Reddy; and others v. K. Ramachander and anotherr, the High

¶45

Court ofAndhra Pradesh held as under;

¶46

"The 2nd respondent alone disputed not onlg the relationship of tlle emploger artd emplogee, but euen the occ'urrence of accidenL Except hauing the lunLry of putting some ifieleuant and obnonous questions in e cross examination to PW 1 and RW 1, the 2nd respondent has not chDsen to lead ang euide.nce to buttress its contention. In that uieu of the motter, tlrc plea taken bg the 2nd respondent, in its cowter-affidauil, rernairrcd unproued, and uithout ang basis. Insteed of ignonng the unproued version of the 2nd respondent, fhe Cornmissione r ho.s token it o.s a gospel tnih and deried the entire benefit to the appellants under the Act. Bg her o.cts ond omissions rn lhis regard, the Commissioner behed lhe hope of the Parliarnent that the rights oJ lhe uorkmatt and their dependanls, under tle Act, uould be better protected bg entrusting the adjudication to the departmer ol authoittes."

¶47

Even otherwise , the contentions raised by the opposite

¶48

party No.2 before this Court are certainly based on questions of fact. The Honourable Supreme Court in North East Karnataka

¶49

Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha2 held as under:

¶50

"9. At the outset, we mag lake note of the fact, being a settled principle, that the queston os to whether the employee met with ot7 accident, whether the accident ocat-red duing the course of emplogment, LDhether it orose out of an emplogmenl, how and in Luhat manner the accident occuned, uho wqs negligent in causing the accident, uhether there eisted anlt relotonsh[p of enplogee and emploger, whctt tues the age and monthlg salary of the emplogee, how rnang are the dependents of the deceased. emptogee, the extent of disabiltty caused to the entplogee due lo injuries suffe-red in an accident, uhether th.ere uas artg insurarrce couerage obtained b!/ the

¶51

'^zoo+ 1+;^{el-n ts}

¶52

, (2019) I r scc 5r4

¶53

MGP..J cMA 848 2013

¶54

¶55

emploger to couer the incident etc.^qre some of the^material issues uhich arise for the^just decision oJ the Commissioner in a claim petition when an employee sullers any^bodity injury or dies duing the course of his emplogment and he/ his LRs suels,f fus emploger to claim compensatton under the Act.

¶56

1O- The aforementioned questions are essentiqlLg the qt/€stion' of Jact and tlEreJore, theg tre required to^be proued uith the aid of euidence. Once theg are proued either uqA, the Jinltngs recorded thereon are regarded as the lindings of fact.

¶57

1 1. The appeal prouided under Section 3O of the Act to the High CoutT agaist lhe order of the Commissioner lies ottlg against the specifi.c orders set out in clauses (a) to^(e) of Section 3O of the Act Loith a Jurther ider contained in the frrst^{prouiso to tfle section thot the qppeal tru/st inuolue} substantial questions of laLD.

¶58

In other words, the appeal prouided under Section 3O of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissrcner ts not like a regular rtrst appeal akin to Section 96 of the Code of Ciuil Procedure, 19OB which catt be heard both on focts and law. The appetlate juisdiction of the High Court to decide the appeal is confined ontg to examine the substantial questions of lau arising in the case."

¶59

I0. Even in Golla Rajanna etc., v. The Divisional Manager

¶60

and another etc.,3 the Honourable Supreme Court held under thc scheme of the Act, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts In view of the principle laid down in the above said authorities, since the contentions raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2/Insurance Company are based on questions of fact, it is evident that scope of appeal under Section 3O of the Employee's Compensation Act is very limited, thereby the ambit of interfering with the order passcd by the learned Commissioner is also limited until and unless the order

¶61

3 2Ot7 l2l ALD l4 (SC)

¶62

¶63

MGP.J cMA 848 2013

¶64

passed by the learned Commissioner is^{perverse or when there} is patent irregularity or iltegality committed^{by the learned} Commissioner while^passing the^{impugnedorder. Moreover,} when tw-o interpretations are^{possible, the interpretation; which} is favourable to the claimant,^{shallbe takeninto consideration,} since the Workmen's^{Compensation Act(now Employees'} Compensation Act) is a beneficial^{legislation enacted to protect} the interest of emPloYees.

¶65

I 1. In view of the above^{discussion, this Court is of the} considered view that the^{learned Commissionerafter} considering all the aspects^{has rightlyawardedcompensation in} favour of the applicants.^{Thus, there is noinfirmityor} irregularity in the order^{passed by the learned Commissioner'} Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous^{Appeal is devoidof meritsand it} is liable to be dismissed.

¶66

t2. Accordingly, the Civil^{Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed'} There shall be no order^{as to costs}

¶67

Pending Miscellaneous^{applications, if any, shallstand}

¶68

closed.

¶69

SO/- K. SRINIVASA o JOINT REGIS^RAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

';. T[e Cornmissioner for UJorkrten s Cc'ntpetrl;atlort ai-'d '\ssistant Ccnrmtssroner of^{Latrour I ifinlaialf,irmirtaSzrmkshemaBhavan: R T C' 'X} Roads, at Hyderabad.

¶74