HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
C.M.A.NO.299 of 2022
JUDGMENT :
The appellant herein is second opposite party in a Workmen's Compensation case vide W.C.No.20 of 2014 on the file of Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour II, Hyderabad. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Commissioner in the above referred workmen's compensation case by which the Commissioner fixed liability to pay compensation on the appellant herein along with the owner of the vehicle, the Insurance Company preferred the present appeal on the following grounds :
2. The appellant has claimed that the order of the learned Commissioner is contrary to law, weight of evidence. The learned Commissioner should have seen that there is no liability for payment of any compensation by this appellant. But he wrongly awarded compensation by fixing liability against the appellant to pay Rs.4,95,136/-. It seems from the grounds of the appeal itself that the learned Commissioner while awarding compensation fixed liability against the insurance company for an amount of Rs.4,95,136/- and directed the owner of the vehicle to pay 2 SSRN,J C.M.A. No.299 of 2022 Rs.1,23,409/-. However, the appellant claims that the Commissioner wrongly considered the claim of respondents/claimants as if the deceased died during the course and out of employment, thereby he sought for setting aside the order.
3. The respondents herein i.e., 1 to 4 are the claimants i.e., applicants who filed the above referred compensation case whereas, the 5th respondent is the owner of the vehicle on which the deceased was working. For better appreciation of the case and for better understanding, it would be necessary to refer the case of respondents No.1 to 4 filed before the learned Commissioner.
4. One V.Tirupataiah, who herein after will be referred as deceased was working as a coolie under the employment of respondent No.5 herein. Respondent No.1 is the wife, respondents No.2 and 3 are his children and respondent No.4 is the mother of the deceased. Respondents No.1 to 4 have claimed that on 19-04-2013 the deceased was on duty as coolie under respondent No.5 and he, along with other coolies proceeding towards an under construction railway bridge and he received injuries in an accident. Later he succumbed to the injuries. The respondents No.1 to 4 have claimed that the deceased along with the co-workers 3 SSRN,J C.M.A. No.299 of 2022 proceeded on foot to the newly under construction railway bridge situated in the limits of Kadabahali Village of Hubli, Karnataka State. Suddenly, a tractor bearing No.KA 25/B-952 which was driven in high speed, in a rash and negligent manner dashed the deceased and other co-workers, who suffered grievous injuries. Therefore, the respondents No.1 to 4 filed the above referred case for compensation. Both the opposite parties i.e., appellant herein and owner of the vehicle who is shown as respondent No.5 in the present appeal made their appearance and filed their respective counters, and they have disputed the claim.
5. During enquiry, the wife of the deceased has been examined as AW.1 and she has marked Exs.A1 to A6. The Deputy Manager of the appellant was examined as RW.1. Exs.B1 to B3 were marked on behalf of appellant. The learned Commissioner, having considered the pleadings, evidence allowed the claim.
6. Heard both parties.
7. Now the point for consideration is :
Whether the learned Commissioner committed any error by awarding compensation and in fixing liability against the appellant to pay Rs.4,95,136/-?
8. There was no serious dispute about the employment of the deceased or about the death in the above referred accident. The evidence of AW.1 coupled with the documents including the 4 SSRN,J C.M.A. No.299 of 2022 copy of F.I.R., scene of offence panchanama, post-mortem report etc., would show that the deceased while working as a coolie under respondent No.5 received injuries in a road accident and died while undergoing treatment. There is no dispute about the insurance policy obtained by respondent No.5 from the appellant herein. According to the findings in the order, it is very clear that respondent No.5 obtained the insurance policy from the wages of deceased @ Rs.5,000/- per month. Therefore, the learned Commissioner while considering the oral and documentary evidence and in view of the specific contention, though the salary of the deceased was fixed as Rs.6,250/- per month, restricted the liability of the appellant on the basis of Rs.5,000/- per month and restricted the liability of the appellant to that extent. Even though the Commissioner came to a conclusion that the respondents No.1 to 4 are entitled to compensation based on the above referred salary @ Rs.6,250/- per month, separated the liability and directed the respondent No.5 to pay Rs.1,23,409/- and fixed the liability on the appellant by taking the salary as Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, there are no grounds to set aside the order. When there is no dispute about the employment of the deceased and insurance policy issued by the appellant covering the liability to an extent of Rs.5,000/-
5 SSRN,J
C.M.A. No.299 of 2022
per month, the appellant cannot escape by saying that there was no such accident. The evidence placed before the Court clearly shows that the deceased died in an accident while he was under the employment of respondent No.5. Therefore, there are no merits in the appeal.
9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed but without costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
Date: 08.11.2022
PLV
6 SSRN,J
C.M.A. No.299 of 2022