Dismissed

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

Telangana HC7 Nov 2023CMA/902/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal seeking to set aside the Commissioner's award of workmen's compensation for the death of an employee. The Court found the deceased was a covered skilled labourer and interfered unwarranted.

What did the court decide?

The civil miscellaneous appeal was dismissed, confirming the order dated 31.08.2009 granting compensation.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

¶6

C.M.A.No: 902 of 2010

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act against the Order dated 31-08-2009 made in W.C.No.06 of 2005 (F) on the fite of the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda.

¶8

Between:

¶9

The Oriental lnsurance Co., Ltd., Branch Office, Ramagiri, Nalgonda Town and Diskict. Represented by its Branch Manager.

¶10

...AppellanUOpposite Party No.2

¶11

AND

¶12

Smt. Anubham Pushpavathi, Wo.late Laxman Prasad, Age.30 years, Occ. House-hold,

¶13

Anubham Madhuri, D/o. late Laxman Prasad, Age: 11 years, Occ: Student,

¶14

Anubham Lithish, S/o.late Laxman Prasad, Age:10 years, Occ: Student,

¶15

Sri Anubham Mohan Rao, S/o.Venkata Subbaiah, Age:65 years, Occ: Nil

¶16

Smt.Anubham Varalakshmi, Wo.Mohan Rao, Age: 60 years, Occ: Household,

¶17

The respondents No.2 & 3 being minors rep. By their natural mother and guardian the Respondent No.'l herein

¶18

A, are R/o Juvurapatem Vi,age, Ko,uru Mandat, or*#"rJr,flrents/Appricants

¶19

Sri B. Srinivasa Rao Power Constructions Pvt Ltd, rep by B. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Adi Narayana, Age: 46 years, Occ:Electrical Contractor [AP Transco] R/o.H.No.6-3-1 3'1, N.G.Colony, Nalgonda.

¶20

...Respondents/opposite party No. 1

¶21

Counsel for the Appellants: Ms. P. SATYA MANJULA

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. B. PARAMESHWAR RAO

¶23

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶24

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINT

¶25

CML MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 9O2 of 2OlO

¶26

JUDGMENT:

¶27

The present civil miscellaneous appeal has been directed against order dated 31.08.2009 in W.C.No.6 of 2OO5 (F) on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda, (hereinafter referred to as^,the Commissioner), whereunder, the claim of respondent No. I to 5 herein seeking compensation for death of one Anubham Laxman Prasad (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,O5,783/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is frled at the instance of the insurance company i.e., opposite party No.2 before the Commissioner.

¶28

The appellant herein is respondent No.2, respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein are applicants and respondent No.6 herein is respondent No. 1 before the Commissioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Commissioner.

¶29

The brief facts of the case of the applicants are that the deceased was husband of applicant No.1 and father of applicant

¶30

¶31

MGP,J cMA 902 2010

¶32

Nos.2 and 3 and applicant Nos.4 and 5 are parents of the deceased. The deceased was 27 years old at the time of the accident and he was working under respondent No.l as skilled labour. On, 06.08.2004 while the deceased was working on erection of S/S2 Mini Transformer at Kotha Chilumuru Village of Kollure Maldal, Guntur District, he suffered with electrical shock and died on his way to hospital. The said incident was registered as Crime No.82 of 2OO4 on the file of the Kollur Police Station, Guntur District. At the time of accident, the deceased was drawing an amount of Rs.3,800/- per month. Respondent No.1 was employer and he got his employees insured with respondent No.2. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severaily liable to pay compensation of Rs.4,OO,O00/- to the applicants for the death of the deceased.

¶33

In spite of serrrice of notice, respondent No.1 did not appear before the Commissioner and he was set ex parte. Respondent No.2 filed their counter denying the claim of the applicants. They specifically denied the employee and employer relationship of the deceased and respondent 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 applicants.

¶34

MGP,J cMA 902 2010

¶35

¶36

In support of their case, the applicants got examined P.W. 1 and got marked Exs.A-l to A-7. Respondent No.2 got examined 1n R.W. 1 and got marked Ex.B-l i.e., copy of insurance policy, support of their case

¶37

On the basis of the above pleadings ald evidence, the Commissioner framed the following issue for consideration:

¶38

"Whether the applicants are entitled to compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923?"

¶39

After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Commissioner opined that respondent No.2 tailed to defend their C SC Hence, allowed the appeal granting an amount of Rs.4,O5,783/- towards compensation to the applicants

¶40

Heard both sides.

¶41

Learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.2-insurance company mainly contended that the deceased was unskilled labour and he was not covered under Ex.B-l insurance^policy, which^was obtained for risk of skilled workmen by respondent No.l.^Further, the name of the deceased was not found in the muster^rolls maintained by respondent No. 1 . Therefore, there is no employee

¶42

¶43

MGP,J cMA 902 2010

¶44

and employer relationship between the deceased and respondent No.l. However, the Commissioner without considering the same has awarded the compensation. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned order.

¶45

Per contra, the iearned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein/applicalts has contended that the Commissioner has rightly considered their case and has awarded^just and reasonable compensation and interference of this Court is unwarranted.

¶46

1 1. Now, the point for determination is as follows:

¶47

"Whether the applicants are entitled for compensation as granted by the Commissioner?"

¶48

As per, respondent No.2-insurance company, there is no employee and employer relationship between the deceased and respondent No.1. Further, as the deceased was not skilled labour, he is not covered under Ex.B-l insurance policy, which was obtained for coverage of risk of skilled labour. In order to substantiate their contention, respondent No.2 examined R.W.1 before the Commissioner. R.W. 1, who is the employee of respondent No.2 stated in his evidence that as per Ex.B-1 premium of Rs.15,298.86 paise was paid by respondent No.1 for an estimated

¶49

¶50

MCP,J cMA 902 2010

¶51

annual wages of Rs.7 ,14 ,9OO / -. As^per, the^{premium paid towards} policy under Ex.B-l, respondent No.l was paying an amount of Rs.1,418/- per month to each^of his employee.^{However, the salary} certificate of the deceased marked^{under Ex.A-7 issuedby} respondent No.l shows that the^{deceased was paid an amount of} Rs.3,800/- per month, which^{accordingto R.W. 1 was false.}

¶52

In the cross-examination,^{R.W. 1 stated that they did not hle} proposal form and admitted that the^{wages of workers differ and the} policy is issued based on the average^{wagesworked out on wage} details given by respondent^{No. I} .^{He also admittedthat as per} Ex. B- 1 insurance policy the employees^{drawing less than} Rs.4,OOO/- per month are^{only covered. He denied the suggestion} that the deceased^was a^{skilled labour, as he did not frle any of his} educational certihcates.^{Finally,deniedthe liability of respondent} No.2.

¶53

Admittedly, on the^{date of incident i.e., on 06.08.20O4, the} deceased along with^{other workers went toKotha Chilumuru} Village, Kollure Mandal of Guntur^{District for attendingelectrical} work. As per the instructions of^{respondentNo. 1, all of them} including the deceased^{were doing electricalwork of erection of}

¶54

¶55

MGP,J cMA 902 2010

¶56

S/52 Mini Transformer. In that process, the deceased was working by riding a ladder and the other workers were supplying the electrical tools, spares, etc., to him. While he was litting the H.G.Fuse set, unfortunately, power was return supplied to the neutral wire and due to which the deceased received electrical shock and fell down on earth. As a result, the deceased died while he was being shifted to hospital.

¶57

Except stating that the deceased is not skilled labour and therefore, he is not covered under Ex.B-1 policy and that there is no employee and employer relationship, respondent No.2-insurance company has not adduced any cogent and convincing evidence to prove the same. On the other hand, the applicants have adduced proper evidence to prove their case. When there is contrary evidence, respondent No.2 has to rebut the same to defend their case, but the same is not done

¶58

In order to prove the employee and employer relationship between the deceased and respondent No.l, the applicants have relied upon the evidence of P.W. 1, who is wife of the deceased. It is not disputed that respondent No.l has obtained Ex.B- 1 policy to cover the risk of his employees. P.W.t has frled Ex.A-7, which is the

¶59

¶60

MGP,J cMA 902 2010

¶61

salary certificate issued by^{respondentNo.1. The same showsthat} the deceased was employed^{under respondentNo.1.Though,} respondent No.1 remained^{ex parte, Ex.A-7 shows that the deceased} was skilled labour employed^{under him and was paid salary of} Rs.3,800/- per month. All^{thesecircumstancesshow that there was} employee and employer^{relationship between the deceased and} respondent No.1.

¶62

There is no dispute^{about the occurrence of the incident'} Apart from the oral^{evidence of P.W. 1, the occurrenceof incident is} also supported by Ex.A-4,^{which is final report issued by Sub-} Inspector of Kolluru^{Police Station. Ex.A-4 clearly discloses that} while the deceased^{was discharginghisduties under the} employment of respondent^{No.l, he had suffered electricalshock} and died. Under these^{circumstances, this Court is ofthe} considered opinion that^{the deceased died during and out of his} employment with^{resPondentNo.1.}

¶63

Further, the contents^{of Ex.B-l i'e., the copy of insurance} poliry clearly discloses that^{premium of Rs.15,298'86/-paise was} paid by respondent No.1^{and 42 employeesworkingunder him were} covered under the^{policy. The said policywas in force on the date of}

¶64

¶65

MGP,J cMA 902 20 t0

¶66

accident and covers risk of skilled^{workersdrawing salary of less} than Rs.4,OOO/- per month. Which^{clearly establishesthat the} deceased, who was drawing an amount^{of Rs.3,BOO/- per monthby} working under respondent No.1 as skilled labour is covered under the said policy. Therefore, the contention that^{the deceasedwas not} covered under the policy issued by respondent No.2 is unmerited. The Commissioner after considering all the aspects has^rightly awarded just and reasonable compensation to the^applicants. I{ence, this Court need not interfere into the findings of^the Commissioner. This appeal is devoid of merits and the^{same is} Iiable to be dismissed.

¶67

[n the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is^{dismissed by} confirming order dated 31.08.2009 in^W.C.No.6 of^{2O05(F) on the} fite of the Commissioner for Workmen's^Compensation and^Deput5r Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda.^There shall^be no^{orderas to} costs, Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall^stand

closed

sd,-B^s

icH'E8rt+Ef,JJ

/TTRUE^COPY'/

SECTION^OFFICER

to'', . ana Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and^{DeputyCommisstoner} ' oi rroo"^{Nalgonda(with records)} z 6""^{Ld.^r.} r :{XflSli,X'S-#"'ffilii?,!Y3ir"r -: On. CC to Mr' B PA 4. Two^{CD CoPies}

¶74

".)r-

¶75

HIGH COURT DATED:0711112023

¶76

oR 1 H E s 14
($
oo ('
0 t npt mzt z
a
I

d

¶77

JUDGMENT

¶78

CMA.No.902 ot 2010

¶79

APPEAL IS DISMISSED

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Smt.Barisetty Vijayalaxmi Vs Smt.S.Sada Veeramani and 2 Others

Shaik Asif, Vs Shaik Saleem and Another

Arigea Shiva Shankar and 9 Others Vs Bandari Vishwanath and 2 others

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

K Pentaiah (Died) Vs the Joint Collector

Latha and 2 Others Vs the Union of India