THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3417 of 2003
AND
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2076 of 2004
COMMON JUDGMENT:
These appeals emanate from the order dated 22.05.2003 passed
by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Nizamabad, in
W.C.Case No.328/97 (NF), granting a total compensation of Rs.97,796/-
to the workman/claimant for the injuries he suffered in a motor vehicle
accident that occurred on 21.01.1997 during the course of employment.
C.M.A.No.3417 of 2003 is filed by the claimant being aggrieved by
the quantum of compensation; and C.M.A.No2076 of 2004 is filed by the
insurance company challenging the very grant of compensation itself. As
the appeals are connected, they are heard together and are being
disposed of by this common judgment.
Brief facts of the case are that the workman/claimant filed a claim
petition, W.C.Case No.328/97 (NF), before the Commissioner stating that
on 21.01.1997 he was discharging duties as Cleaner on the Jeep bearing
No.AP-25D-121, proceeding from Nirmal to Armoor, and at about 10:30
AM when the Jeep reached Kisan nagar, the driver of the jeep drove the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and lost control of the vehicle, as
a result of which, the vehicle turned turtle resulting in grievous injuries to
the passengers including the claimant. He therefore sought
compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- against the owner of the Jeep-Eravahri
Murali (respondent No.1 in the claim petition), and the insurance
company (respondent No.2 in the claim petition).
2 cma_3417_2003 &
cma_2076_2004
CKR, J
On behalf of the claimant, the witnesses PWs.1 and 2 were examined; and the documents Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, none was examined however the documents Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.
The Commissioner, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence available, granted a total compensation of Rs.97,796/- to the claimant, by holding both the owner and insurance company jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
Heard Sri K.M. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the claimant; and Sri E. Venugopal Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company.
Learned counsel Sri K.M. Mahender Reddy submits that the claimant is employed as Cleaner on the Jeep bearing No.AP-25D-121, and in the accident he suffered permanent partial disability. Learned counsel contends that the Commissioner, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, determined the compensation by fixing the loss of earning capacity at 40% whereas the claimant is entitled to a higher compensation as the functional disability is 100% and further the claimant is entitled to interest on the compensation amount.
On the other hand, Sri E. Venugopal Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, by relying on Ramashray Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd1, contends that the claimant being a Cleaner on the Jeep, he is not entitled to any compensation in the first place as the policy does not cover the Cleaner and further the Statute does not mandate the Cleaner to be covered under the policy, and therefore the very grant of compensation is unsustainable and illegal.
1
(2003) 10 SCC 664
3 cma_3417_2003 &
cma_2076_2004
CKR, J
Having considered the respective submissions, and perusing the record and also the judgment of the Hon' ble Supreme Court in Ramashray Singh (1 supra), the matter is squarely covered by the judgment in Ramashray Singh (1 supra). It may further be noted that even on facts there is no material to support the claim of the claimant with respect to 100% functional disability as against Ex.A4-the Disability Certificate issued by PW.2-Doctor certifying the disability at 40%.
In view of there being no insurance coverage to the claimant and in view of the judgment in Ramashray Singh (1 supra), the granting of compensation itself is without jurisdiction and therefore the question of enhancement of compensation, and also payment of interest, does not arise, and the appeal of the claimant is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, C.M.A.No.3417 of 2003 filed by the workman/claimant is dismissed; and C.M.A.No.2076 of 2004 filed by the insurance company is allowed. However, the compensation amount that has already been withdrawn by the claimant shall not be recovered from the claimant; and the compensation amount lying with authority shall be refunded to the insurance company. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in these appeals, shall also stand closed.
_____________________
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J
23rd June, 2021
ksm
4 cma_3417_2003 &
cma_2076_2004
CKR, J
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3417 of 2003 AND CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2076 of 2004 23rd June, 2021 ksm