Telangana High Court
Thota Buchi Rajam And Anr vs The Northern Power Distribution ... on 8 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.1068 of 2011
and 19 of 2024
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against order dated 11.03.2011 in W.C.No.18 of 2009 (F) on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour at Nizamabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Commissioner'). The said claim petition was filed by the petitioners therein seeking compensation for death of one Thota Bheemaiah (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') and the same was partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,48,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners before the Commissioner filed C.M.A.No.1068 of 2011 seeking enhancement of compensation and the respondents before the Commissioner filed C.M.A.No.19 of 2024 seeking to set aside the impugned order and dismiss the claim petition. Since both the appeals are arising out of same order, they are being dealt with by way of this common judgment.
2. The petitioners before the Commissioner are appellants in C.M.A.No.1068 of 2011 and respondents in C.M.A.No.19 of 2024. The respondents before the Commissioner are appellants in 2 MGP,J CMA_1068_2011 & CMA_19_2024 C.M.A.No.19 of 2024 and respondents in C.M.A.No.1068 of 2011. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Commissioner.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are father and mother of the deceased respectively. The deceased was working as helper under the respondents and on 18.07.2003 at about 02:15 PM, the deceased was attending repairs at electricity pole in the field of one Medipalli Bakkaiah. At that time, he suddenly came into contact with main line on the upper level and due to the current shock he fell down from the current pole and died on the spot. In this regard, a case was registered in First Information Report No.41 of 2003 on the file of Kathalapur Police Station of Karimnagar District under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
4. It is further the case of the petitioners that they were completely dependent on the earnings of the deceased. The deceased was 20 years old and was working as helper under respondents and that he was being paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month towards wages. The deceased died during the course 3 MGP,J CMA_1068_2011 & CMA_19_2024 and out of his employment under the respondents. Hence, the petitioners filed the present claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- payable by the respondents being the employers of the deceased.
5. Respondents filed their counter denying the averments of the claim petition. Respondents contended that the deceased was never employed under them as helper and the present claim petition is filed with malafide intention to get compensation from the respondents. It is also contended that the deceased was not employed under respondents, as such, the petitioners have not filed any proof of employment such as details of employment, date of his appointment, identity card etc., It is also contended that the respondents were unaware of the incident and the deceased unauthorizedly attended the repair work on electrical pole. Hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation for his death. It is also stated that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition because the alleged incident took place at Thakkalapalli within the limits of Kathalapur Police Station of Karimnagar District and the present claim petition is filed before 4 MGP,J CMA_1068_2011 & CMA_19_2024 the Commissioner of Nizamabad District. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
6. In support of their case, the petitioners got examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. In favour of respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B-1 was got marked.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Commissioner:
"1.Whether the deceased was a workman within the meaning of the Act and whether he died accident arising out of and in the course of employment under opposite parties?
2. If so, what was the monthly wages drawn by the deceased workman?
3. What was the age of the workman at the time of his death?
4. Whether the applicants are entitled to compensation? If so, to what extent?"
8. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Commissioner held that the petitioners have successfully proved their case. Hence, the claim petition was partly allowed holding that respondents were liable to pay compensation and granted an amount of Rs.4,48,000/- towards compensation payable to the petitioners.
5
MGP,J CMA_1068_2011 & CMA_19_2024
9. Heard both sides.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners i.e., appellants in C.M.A.No.1068 of 2011 contended that the Commissioner has erred in considering the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month instead of Rs.5,000/- per month. It is further contended that the Commissioner has failed to grant interest at 12% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of the accident till the date of deposit. Hence, prayed to allow C.M.A.No.1068 of 2011 and enhance compensation granted by the Commissioner and also grant interest as prayed for.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents i.e., appellants in C.M.A.No.19 of 2024 contended that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction in the present claim petition, as the accident took place in Karimnagar District and the Commissioner had jurisdiction only over Nizamabad District. It is also contended that though, the petitioners have not proved that the deceased was workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and that the deceased was employed under respondents, the Commissioner erred in granting compensation to 6 MGP,J CMA_1068_2011 & CMA_19_2024 the petitioners. It is also contended that the Commissioner without any proper evidence has taken the wages of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month and has granted compensation. Hence, prayed to allow the C.M.A.No.19 of 2024 and set aside the impugned order.
12. Now the point for determination is as follows:
"1. Whether the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation and interest on the same as prayed for?
2. Whether the Commissioner is justified in granting compensation based on the evidence on record?"
Point Nos.1 and 2:
13. This Court has perused the entire evidence and material placed on record. Petitioner No.1 was examined as P.W.1 and he reiterated the contents of the claim petition in his evidence. Though, he was cross-examined at length, nothing contrary was elicited. The petitioners got examined P.W.2, who was independent eyewitness to the incident. P.W.2 supported the case of the petitioners with regard to age, occupation, salary, occurrence of the incident and death of the deceased. He deposed that on 18.07.2003, he was present along with ten others at the place of incident in the field of one Medipalli Bakkaiah, where the 7 MGP,J CMA_1068_2011 & CMA_19_2024 deceased was repairing the electric pole. At about, 02:15 PM, the deceased while attending repairs of electricity pole suddenly came into contact with main line on the upper level and due to the current shock, he fell down from the current pole and died on the spot. He also stated that Police, Kathalapur of Karimnagar District recorded his statement. In the cross-examination, P.W.2 denied the suggestion that the deceased never worked under respondents and used to attend different electrical works in the village.
14. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents, one Sri G. Harikrishna, ADE/Operation/Korutla/APNPDCL was examined as R.W.1. He reiterated the contents of the counter filed by the respondents. He deposed that any person of their department intended to carry out repairing works to the electric pole will take the line clearance to avoid passage of electricity through the said lines and the departmental staff only should attend such work. A layman like deceased was not supposed to attend such work because he does not know the repairing works of the electric pole. He denied the employment of the deceased as helper and also the employee and employer relationship between the deceased and the 8 MGP,J CMA_1068_2011 & CMA_19_2024 respondents. He also denied that the deceased died during the course and out of his employment as helper under respondents. He also deposed that the alleged incident took place at Thakallapalli village within the limits of Police Station Kathalapur of Karimnagar District and the present claim petition is filed before the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 of Nizamabad District, who does not have jurisdiction. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
15. It is pertinent to state that Ex.A-1 copy of FIR clearly shows that the deceased was attending repair works on the electric pole and due to sudden passage of current he died due to electrocution on the spot. Ex.A-2 copy of postmortem examination report and Ex.A-3 copy of inquest report also shows that the deceased died due to electrocution. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are father of the deceased and eyewitness to the incident also clearly support the occurrence of the incident as alleged by the petitioners. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to occurrence of the incident and death of the deceased. 9
MGP,J CMA_1068_2011 & CMA_19_2024
16. The main dispute is with regard to employee and employer relationship between the deceased and the respondents. In order to prove the same, the petitioners apart from examining P.Ws.1 and 2 got marked Ex.A-4, which is certificate issued by Sarpanch with regard to the employment of the deceased as helper under respondents. The petitioners have discharged their initial burden with regard to the employment of the deceased. The respondents got examined R.W.1, who in his evidence simply says that the deceased was not employed under respondents and in order to substantiate the said claim no proper evidence was adduced. Though, Ex.B-1 copies of the extract register of fixed charges is marked through R.W.1, the said document does not prove that the deceased was not employed under respondents. The respondents in order to rebut the initial burden discharged by the petitioners ought to have adduced cogent and convincing evidence, but except the self-serving statement of R.W.1 and Ex.B-1, nothing has been adduced by the respondents to disprove the case set up by the petitioners. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that after considering all these aspects the Commissioner has rightly held that the deceased was employed as 10 MGP,J CMA_1068_2011 & CMA_19_2024 helper under respondents, he died during the course and out of his employment due to electrocution and that he is workman under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents/appellants in C.M.A.No.19 of 2024 that there was no employee and employer relationship between the deceased and respondents is unsustainable.
17. Learned counsel for the respondents i.e., appellants in C.M.A.No.19 of 2024 contended that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction in the present claim petition, as the accident took place in Karimnagar District and the Commissioner had jurisdiction only over Nizamabad District. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the petitioners i.e., appellants in C.M.A.No.1068 of 2011 contended that the petitioners after the death of the deceased were residing in Armoor of Nizamabad District, as such they have filed the present claim petitioner before the Commissioner of Nizmabad District. In support of his case, he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Morgina Begum v. Md. Hanuman Plantation Limited 1, wherein it was 1 (2007) 11 SCC 616 11 MGP,J CMA_1068_2011 & CMA_19_2024 held that petition for compensation could be filed at location where the claimant parents had moved after death of their son.
18. It is pertinent to state that a perusal of the cause title of the claim petition as well as the impugned order, the residence of the petitioners is shown as Armoor, Nizamabad District. Furthermore, in his evidence, P.W.1 clearly stated that he along with petitioner No.2 was residing in Armoor, Nizamabad District. In the said circumstances, in view of the decision of the Apex Court cited supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners were residing in Nizamabad District after death of the deceased, as such they filed the claim petition before the Commissioner of Nizamabad District. Therefore, the Commissioner was having jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition, though the accident occurred in Karimnagar District. This aspect was rightly dealt with by the Commissioner and interference of this Court is unwarranted.
19. It is also pertinent to state that a perusal of the evidence placed on record by the petitioners shows that except mere contention no proper evidence is placed to show that the deceased 12 MGP,J CMA_1068_2011 & CMA_19_2024 was earning an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month towards wages. In the said circumstances, the Commissioner has considered the wages of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month. This Court is of the considered opinion that the said amount is just and reasonable and interference of this Court is unwarranted.
20. Furthermore, considering the age of the deceased the Commissioner has granted Rs.4,48,000/- towards compensation, which is just and reasonable and interference of this Court is unwarranted. Hence, the C.M.A.No.19 of 2024 filed by the respondents before the Commissioner is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
21. Insofar as interest is concerned, the Commissioner has not granted any interest on the compensation amount. In respect of rate of interest, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of P. Meenaraj v. P. Adigurusamy 2, held as under:
"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 2 Civil Appeal No 209 of 2022, dated 06.01.2022 13 MGP,J CMA_1068_2011 & CMA_19_2024 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."
22. In view of the principle laid down in the above said citation, it is evident that the petitioners are entitled for interest at 12% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of accident till date of deposit. Hence, this Court is inclined to award interest at 12% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of accident till the date of deposit.
23. In the result, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.19 of 2024 is dismissed and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1068 of 2011 is partly allowed by modifying the impugned order passed by the Commissioner to the extent of granting interest rate at 12% per annum from the date of incident till the date of deposit. In all other aspects, the order of the Commissioner stands confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 08.02.2024 GVR