Telangana High Court
P.Ramesh vs Narri Lingam And Anr on 8 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.44 of 2013
JUDGMENT:
1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against order dated 23.10.2012 on the file of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour- IV, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner'). The said claim application was filed by the applicant therein seeking compensation for injuries sustained by him in an accident that occurred on 10.01.2012 and the same was partly allowed by the Commissioner granting compensation of Rs.5,82,252/-. Dissatisfied with the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed at the instance of the applicant before the Commissioner seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. The appellant herein is applicant and respondents herein are opposite parties before the Commissioner. 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 was working as driver on lorry bearing No.AP 29 TB 0929 under the 2 MGP,J CMA_44_2013 employment of opposite party No.1. On 10.01.2012, the applicant was on duty on the said lorry and proceeding from Kanchikacherla to Hyderabad. When the lorry reached near Chevitikallu village, at about 15:00 hours, another lorry bearing No.AP 24 TA 6668, which was coming in opposite direction being driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver dashed the lorry of the applicant. Due to which accident occurred and the applicant sustained fracture of right tibia and fracture of left ankle and right ankle. Immediately, the applicant was shifted to Help Hospital, Vijayawada, through 108 Ambulance. Subsequently, he was shifted to Tilak Nagar hospital for better treatment. With regard to the accident, the Police Governorpet of Vijayawada city registered a case in Crime No.24 of 2012 under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. It is further the case of the applicant that the said accident occurred during the course and out of his employment as driver under opposite party No.1. According to the applicant, he was aged about 32 years as on the date of the accident and he was being paid an amount of Rs.8,500/- per month towards wages by opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 being the owner and 3 MGP,J CMA_44_2013 opposite party No.2 being insurer of the lorry involved in the accident are liable to pay compensation. Hence, the present claim application is filed by the applicant seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him.
5. Opposite party No.1 remained ex parte. Opposite party No.2 filed its counter denying the averments of the claim application such as age, wages, employment of the applicant under opposite party No.1, occurrence of the accident and also injuries sustained by the applicant. It is also denied that the applicant was having valid driving license as on the date of the accident. Opposite party No.2 prayed to dismiss the claim application as the compensation claimed by the applicant is excess and exorbitant.
6. In support of his case, the applicant got examined himself as A.W.1 and also examined A.W.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-14. No oral evidence was adduced by opposite party No.2, but Exs.B-1 to B-3 were got marked.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings and evidence, the Commissioner framed the following issues: 4
MGP,J CMA_44_2013 "1. Whether the applicant sustained injuries in an accident that arose out of and in the course of employment?
2. If yes, what is the percentage of the physical disability and consequent loss of earning capacity suffered by the applicant?
3. Who are liable to pay compensation to the applicant?
4. What is quantum of compensation entitled by the applicant?"
8. After considering the evidence and documents filed by both sides, the Commissioner awarded an amount of Rs.5,82,252/- towards compensation to the applicant. Dissatisfied with the same, the present appeal is filed seeking enhancement of compensation by the applicant.
9. Heard, the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for respondent No.2.
10. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant is that though the applicant has proved his case by adducing cogent and convincing evidence and also by relying upon the documents, the Commissioner has awarded meager amount towards compensation. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation granted by the Commissioner.
5
MGP,J CMA_44_2013
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2/opposite party No.2 i.e., the insurance company contended that the Commissioner after considering all the aspects has awarded reasonable compensation and interference of this Court is not necessary.
12. Now, the point for determination is as follows:
"Whether the applicant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for?"
Point:-
13. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents placed on record by both the parties. The applicant was examined as A.W.1 and he reiterated the contents of the claim application. In order to prove the injuries sustained by him, he got examined A.W.2, who is Orthopedic Surgeon. A.W.2 deposed that he examined the applicant and found that he sustained closed fracture of right tibia and initially, he was treated in Help Hospital, Vijayawada and later, he was treated in Tilaknagar Hospital, Hyderabad. He deposed that POP was applied and the applicant was advised to undergo operation, but due to financial problems, 6 MGP,J CMA_44_2013 he could not undergo operation. He also deposed that there was stiffness in right leg due to which the applicant cannot sit, squat and cannot walk without support. Therefore, after going through X-rays along with reports, he issued disability certificate with 45% disability being partial and permanent. He also deposed that the fracture was non-union with shortening of right leg, which will cause limping. The applicant cannot drive any vehicle due to the said injuries, which are grievous in nature. A.W.2 further assessed the loss of earning capacity at 100%. In the cross- examination, he has stated that as per the previous medical record, the applicant only sustained fracture of right tibia and denied that the applicant did not sustain 45% disability and 100% loss of earning capacity. He also denied that Ex.A-7 disability certificate was false and fabricated document created for the purpose of this case.
14. Apart from the oral evidence of A.Ws.1 and 2, the applicant also relied upon Ex.A-1 copy of First Information Report, Ex.A-2 copy of charge sheet and Ex.A-3 copy of intimation to the police by Help Hospital. The said documents would show that a case was registered in Crime No.24 of 2012 under Section 337 of the Indian 7 MGP,J CMA_44_2013 Penal Code, 1860, by Police Governorpet, Vijaywada City and investigation was taken up. After thorough investigation charge sheet under Ex.A-2 was laid. Ex.A-4 copy of wound certificate issued by Help Hospital, Ex.A-5 original discharge summary of the Help Hospital, Ex.A-6 original discharge summary of Tilaknagar Hospital and Ex.A-7 disability certificate, would reveal the injuries sustained by the applicant and treatment underwent by him in the hospitals. Ex.A-8 is copy of driving license, which shows that the applicant was having valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident. Ex.A-9 copy of registration certificate, Ex.A-10 copy of permit, Ex.A-11 copy of fitness, Ex.A-12 copy of way bill and Ex.A-14/B-1 copy of insurance policy clearly disclose that opposite party No.1 was owner of the vehicle and as on the date of the accident, the vehicle was having valid and effective insurance policy issued by opposite party No.2.
15. On behalf of opposite party No.2, its Assistant Legal Manager was examined as R.W.1, who deposed about the delay in filing First Information Report. In the cross-examination, he admitted that policy was in force as on the date of the accident and the same covers the risk of driver. He also accepted that the FIR was 8 MGP,J CMA_44_2013 lodged within time and there was no delay on part of the applicant in filing the FIR.
16. It is pertinent to state that admittedly there is no dispute with regard to occurrence of the accident and injuries sustained by the applicant. However, the main dispute that the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant has put forth is that the Commissioner has taken meager amount towards income of the applicant and granted compensation on lower side. Admittedly, the applicant claimed that he was being paid an amount of Rs.8,500/- per month. However, the Commissioner considering the G.O.Ms.No.83, L.E.T & F (Lab-II) Department dated 04.12.2006, and V.D.A. payable as notified by the Commissioner of Labour, A.P., Hyderabad, fixed the wages at Rs.6,130.25/- paise per month. However, the Central Government of India by notification published in Gazette of India No.1047, dated 31.05.2010 of Ministry of Labour and Employment Notification in S.O.1258 (E) the monthly wages are limited to Rs.8,000/- per month with effect from 31.05.2010. The date of accident in the present case is 10.01.2012. Though, the applicant claimed that an amount of Rs.8,500/- was paid to him per month towards 9 MGP,J CMA_44_2013 wages, no documentary proof is filed by him to prove the same. Hence, the Commissioner considered the minimum wages i.e., Rs.6,130.25/- while granting compensation. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that an amount of Rs.7,500/- per month can be taken into consideration for determining the compensation.
17. It is also pertinent to state that A.W.2 determined the disability of the applicant at 45% and loss of earning capacity at 100%. However, the Commissioner considering the nature of injuries sustained by the applicant has determined the loss of earning capacity at 75%. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that though, the applicant cannot perform his duties as driver due to the injuries sustained by him, he can eke his livelihood by doing other works. Hence, the Commissioner has rightly determined the loss of earning capacity of the applicant at 75% and interference of this Court into the said aspect is unwarranted. Furthermore, the Commissioner after rightly considering the evidence on record has determined the age of the applicant at 33 years and interference of this Court is not necessary. 10
MGP,J CMA_44_2013
18. As per formula the calculation of amount of compensation is as follows:
Rs.7,500/- X 60/100 X 75/100 X 201.66 = Rs.6,80,602/-
19. The Commissioner has granted an amount of Rs.1,112/- towards stamp fee and Rs.500/- towards advocate fee. Hence, the total amount of compensation, which the applicant is entitled comes to Rs.6,82,214/-.
20. Insofar rate of interest is concerned, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Meenaraj v. P. Adigurusamy 1, 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 and there appears no reason for not allowing interest for 30 days from the date of accident. In fact, in the referred decisions 1 Civil Appeal No 209 of 2022, decided on 6 January 2022 11 MGP,J CMA_44_2013 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."
21. In view 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 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.
22. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,82,252/- to Rs.6,82,214/- payable along with interest at 12% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of accident till the date of deposit. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation along with accrued interest before the Commissioner within period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the applicants are entitled to withdraw the said amount. There shall 12 MGP,J CMA_44_2013 be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 08.02.2024 GVR