THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
C.M.A.No. 1090 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
This Appeal is filed aggrieved by the Order dated 30.06.2005, in W.C.No.51 of 2005 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Cuddaph.
2. The parties are arrayed as per the ranking in W.C.No.51 of 2005.
3. The appellant herein-opposite party no.2 filed the W.C.No.51 of 2005 before the Commissioner's Workmen, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
3. The case of the applicant-claimant is that during the course of the employment with the Opposite Party No.1, he sustained injuries on his lower lip on left side, posterior aspect of right fore arm, right thigh and left shoulder. Due to the said injuries, he is unable to attend coolie works as prior to the accident. Hence, he prayed to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident as per the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
4. The owner of the vehicle-opposite party no.1 was made ex-parte in the W.C case.
5. The Insurance company-opposite party no.2, filed the counter affidavit, denying the averments in the claim petition. He 2 further contended that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy have been violated, and as such, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the applicant.
6. After considering the oral and written arguments, the petitioner was awarded an amount of Rs.59,730/- as compensation with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till realization.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Commissioner ought not to have granted the compensation to the injured/claimant or the Doctor has never treated the applicant or examined the case sheet. It is the further case of the appellant that the opposite party no.1, who is the owner of the vehicle has violated the policy conditions. The applicant has agitated these two grounds before this Court to set aside the Order dated 30.06.2005 passed by the Commissioner's Workmen.
8. The Doctor was cross-examined by the opposite party no.2, who is the insurance company, as AW2 and he denied the suggestions made by the insurance company stating that he has not treated the applicant-claimant. He also denied the suggestion that the claimant was examined only for the purpose of obtaining the disability certificate and he assessed the disability of the injured claimant as 20% and issued the certificate.
9. RW1, who was examined on behalf of the insurance company admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the enforcement of the policy and he also admitted that there was no mention about the categories of the employees. 3
10. After considering the testimonies of the Doctor-AW2 and RW1, the Commissioner's Workmen has rightly passed an award granting an amount of Rs.59,730/- and the grounds raised by the appellant-insurance company come under the purview of the Section 30 of the Act and as there are no substantial questions of law involved and as the grounds raised by the appellant are purely question of fact which were categorically answered by the Commissioner's Workmen, I found, no reasons to interfere with the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Cuddaph.
11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 01.07.2022 Psr/EPS 4 169 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CMA No.1090 OF 2008 Date: 01.07.2022 Psr/EPS