Telangana High Court
Palle Siddulu vs K.Sunil Kumar And Another on 12 December, 2023
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.270 of 2013
JUDGMENT:
1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against order dated 13.12.2012 in W.C.No.202 of 2004 NF on the file of the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation-cum- Deputy Commissioner of Labour at Nizamabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner'). The said case was filed by the appellant herein seeking compensation for injuries sustained by him in an accident that occurred on 25.11.2003 and the same was partly allowed by the Commissioner granting compensation of Rs.2,21,441/-. Dissatisfied by the said order, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed at the instance of the applicant before the Commissioner.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Commissioner.
3. The brief facts of the case of the applicant are that he filed the present claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in an accident that occurred on 25.11.2003. The applicant was working as cleaner on van bearing No.MWN-3970 under the employment of opposite 2 MGP,J CMA_270_2013 party No.1. While so, on 25.11.2003, the applicant during the course and out of his employment was traveling on the said van along with other labourers and when the van reached Chinthakunta village crossing, main road, Mosra village shivar, Varni Mandal, the driver of the van drove in rash and negligent manner, at high speed and lost control over the van, due to which the van dashed a tractor and fell into a ditch. Due to the said accident, the applicant along with other labourers and the driver of the van sustained injuries. The applicant sustained fractures of right leg, fracture right femur, fracture of right forearm radius lower end, fracture of right clavicle, abrasion on right leg, right forearm, injuries on head, chest, legs, multiple and grievous injuries on other parts of the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Sri Venkateshwara Hosptial, Nizamabad, where he was treated as inpatient. Thereafter, he took treatment in various hospitals and incurred an amount of Rs.80,000/ towards medical expenses. In this regard, a case was registered in Crime No.139 of 2003 under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, on the file of Varni Police Station.
3
MGP,J CMA_270_2013
4. It is further contended by the applicant that he was aged about 25 years as on the date of the accident and was being paid an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month towards salary and Rs.50/- per day towards batta. The accident occurred during the course and out of his employment under opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 being the owner and opposite party No.2 being insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident are liable to pay compensation to the applicant for the injuries sustained by him. Hence, the present claim petition was filed.
5. Opposite party No.1 filed his counter admitting the employment of the applicant as cleaner and also admitted the accident, which occurred during the course and out of the employment of the applicant under him. He further stated that he was paying an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month towards wages and Rs.25/- per day towards batta to the applicant. He stated that the van bearing No.MWN 3970 is owned by him and insured with opposite No.2 under valid and effective insurance policy. Therefore, if the applicant is entitled for any compensation, the same is payable only by opposite party No.2. 4
MGP,J CMA_270_2013
6. Opposite party No.2 filed its counter denying the averments of the claim petition such as age, wages, manner of the accident, injuries sustained by the applicant and also employee and employer relationship between the applicant and opposite party No.1. As the compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant, opposite party No.2 prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
7. In support of their case the applicant got examined A.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. Opposite party No.2 did not adduce any oral evidence, but got marked Ex.B-1.
8. On the basis of the above pleadings and evidence, the Commissioner framed the following issues for consideration:
"1. Whether the injured/applicant Palle Siddhulu met with an accident on 25.11.2003 during the course and out of his employment as cleaner on the van bearing No.MWN-3970 under the employment of 1st opposite party and sustained injuries?
2. If yes, what is the percentage of physical disability and consequent loss of earning capacity suffered by the applicant?
3. Who are liable to pay compensation? and
4. What is the amount of compensation entitled by the applicant?"
9. After considering the evidence and documents filed by both sides, the Commissioner awarded an amount of Rs.2,21,441/- 5
MGP,J CMA_270_2013 towards compensation to the applicant. Dissatisfied with the said order, the present appeal is filed at the instance of the applicant.
10. Heard, both sides.
11. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant is that though, the applicant has proved his case by adducing cogent evidence, the Commissioner has only granted negligible amount towards compensation and furthermore, interest is also not awarded by the Commissioner.
12. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2/opposite party No.2 contended that the Commissioner after considering all the aspects has awarded reasonable compensation and interference of this Court is unnecessary.
13. Now, the point for determination is as follows:
"Whether the applicant is entitled for enhancement of compensation and grant of interest?"
Point:-
14. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents placed on record by both the parties. The applicant got examined 6 MGP,J CMA_270_2013 himself as A.W.1 and reiterated the contents of the claim petition and deposed about the manner of the accident and his employment with opposite party No.1. In order to prove injuries sustained by the applicant, he got examined Dr. Satyanarayana Anumalla, Orthopaedic Surgeon as A.W.2. His evidence shows that he is member of medical board and that on 28.10.2012 he examined A.W.1 and verified the previous medical records and medical certificate issued to the applicant by Dr. Sudhir, C.A.S., Government Hospital Nizamabad, and found fracture of right of right leg, fracture right femur, fracture of right forearm, fracture right clavicle, abrasion on right leg and right forearm. A.W.2 examined the applicant physically and clinically and subjected him for exercises and found mal-united fractures-poly trauma of fractures both bones right leg, right thigh bone, both bones right forearm and clavicle and pain and suffering. He assessed the disability at 75% permanent, partial disability and functional loss of earning capacity at 75% and issued Ex.A-5 disability certificate. In the cross-examination, he stated that he has not treated the applicant and he only examined and issued disability certificate after verifying all the previous medical records. He denied the suggestion that he is not capable to issue disability certificate and 7 MGP,J CMA_270_2013 that he assessed the disability on the higher side to help the case set up by the applicant.
15. It is pertinent to state that the Commissioner after considering the evidence placed on record rightly considered the age of the applicant as 25 years and loss of earning capacity at 75%. The Commissioner has considered the wages of the applicant at Rs.2,259/- as per the minimum rate of wages fixed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.30 L.E.T. & F (Lab- II) dated 27.07.2000 and also VDA payable as notified by the Commissioner of Labour Andhra Pradesh, as the applicant did not file any income proof. Further, the Commissioner has awarded just and reasonable compensation for which interference of this Court is unwarranted.
16. The other contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the Commissioner has not awarded any interest on the compensation amount. In this regard, it is apt to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Meenaraj v. P. Adiguruswamy 1, wherein at para No.10, it is held as follows: 1
Civil Appeal No 209 of 2022, decided on 6 January 2022.8
MGP,J CMA_270_2013 "10. As regards the date of commencement of the liability of interest, the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be right that even in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra), this Court has not laid down the law that the interest would be payable only 30 days after the accident. In our view too, the said statutory period of 30 days does not put a moratorium over the liability of interest. Such interest is related with the amount of compensation receivable by the claimant and there appears no reason for not allowing interest for 30 days from the date of accident. In fact, in the referred decisions too, this Court has allowed interest from the date of accident. That being the position, the questioned part of the order of the High Court calls for interference and the same is modified to the extent that the appellant would be entitled to interest from the date of accident."
17. A perusal of the principle laid down in the above said decision, it is evident that the applicant is entitled for interest at 12% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of accident till the date of deposit.
18. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by granting interest at 12% per annum on the compensation amount awarded by the Commissioner from the date of the accident till the date of deposit and rest of the findings of the Commissioner in the impugned order are confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous appeal, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date:12 .12.2023 GVR