Telangana High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Sandhya Penchala on 19 February, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.431 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
Heard Ms. I.Maamu Vani, learned counsel the appellant- insurance company and learned counsel Sri S.Sudarshan Reddy for the respondent Nos.1 to 5/applicants.
2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 08.06.2023 passed in E.C.No.283 of 2017 by the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation and Assistant Commissioner for Labour-IV, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Commissioner').
3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are that deceased--Penchala Srikanth was working as cleaner on lorry bearing registration No.AP-01-X-7677 and was earning monthly salary of Rs.12,000/-. On 31.08.2017, while the deceased was on duty as a clear on the above lorry and while transporting goods at Yesunagar, Mulugu, in order to protect goods from rain, the deceased was covering the goods with plastic cover, at that time, accidentally, he came in contact with live electric wire and died on the spot due to electrocution. The Police, P.S. Mulugu, registered a case in Crime No.225/2017 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C.
LNA,J CMA No.431 of 2023 2
4. The deceased was aged 29 years, hale and health at the time of accident and used to contribute his earnings to the maintenance and welfare of his family. The applicants filed application under the provisions of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, 'the Act') claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of death of deceased in an accident against the opposite party nos.1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the offending lorry.
5. The opposite party no.1/respondent no.6 herein, filed counter denying all the allegations, except those, which are specially admitted in the counter. He admitted that he was the owner of the lorry, but denied the employment of the deceased as cleaner on the said lorry and denied the employer and employee relationship between O.P.1 and the deceased. It is contended that he insured the lorry with O.P.2 and the insurance policy was in force and valid by the date of accident; that if the Commissioner comes to a conclusion to award any compensation to the claimants, the same has to be awarded against O.P.2 and finally requested to dismiss the claim against him.
6. The opposite no.2-insurance company/appellant herein, filed counter denying all the material allegations mentioned in LNA,J CMA No.431 of 2023 3 the application and further contended that there is no employer and employee relationship between the O.P.1 and the deceased. It is contended that amount of compensation claimed by the applicants with interest and costs are high, excessive, exorbitant and not in accordance with law and finally, prayed to dismiss the claim against the insurance company.
7. Basing on the above pleadings, the Commissioner had framed the following issues:
i) Whether the deceased was an employee within the meaning of the Act, worked as cleaner on the lorry bearing No.AP-01-X-7677 under the employment of O.P.1 and met with an accident on 31.08.2017 during the course and out of his employment resulting in his death ?
ii) If yes, who are liable to pay compensation to the dependants of the deceased?
iii) What is the quantum of compensation entitled by the dependants of the deceased?
8. In order to substantiate the case, the 1st applicant herself was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked on their behalf. On behalf of the opposite parties, none were examined, however, copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1 on behalf of O.P.2.
LNA,J CMA No.431 of 2023 4
9. The Commissioner, on due consideration of the evidence adduced and documents placed on record, awarded compensation of Rs.7,14,053/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till the date of realization.
10. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for appellant submitted that there was no employer and employee relationship between the deceased and the respondent no.6 herein; that the Commissioner ought to have seen that there was no evidence that deceased had suffered electrocution during the course of his employment; that in the absence of employer and employee relationship being proved, the claim under Employees' Compensation was not maintainable and the Commissioner did not have jurisdiction to entertain the same and therefore, the appellant-insurance company could not be fastened with liability.
11. Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5 submitted that the Commissioner, on due consideration of evidence and material placed on record, had rightly awarded the compensation amount, and the appellant failed to make out any LNA,J CMA No.431 of 2023 5 ground to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Commissioner.
Consideration:
12. From the material placed before the Commissioner, the it clearly shows that in fact, at the time of the accident, the deceased was working as cleaner under the opposite party no.1, who is the owner of lorry, and died due to accidental death on account of electric shock during the course of employment while discharging his duties as cleaner. The said fact was disputed by the appellant, however, failed to adduce any cogent and plausible evidence to support its contention. The opposite party no.1 also filed counter stating that deceased employee did not work with him and that essentially denying the employer and employee relationship. However, the opposite party no.1 did not give evidence to that effect before the Commissioner and therefore, the contention of the opposite party no.1 cannot be taken into consideration.
13. The documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A4-final report filed by the Police clearly establishes that there was employer and employee relationship between the deceased and the opposite party no.1. Ex.P3-postmortem report of the deceased also LNA,J CMA No.431 of 2023 6 clearly establishes that deceased had expired due to electrocution. Further, as per Ex.B1-insurance policy, the policy was in force as on the date of accident and therefore, the appellant-insurance company is liable to pay compensation.
14. In Golla Rajanna v. The Divisional Manager 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"8. Section 30 of the Act provides for appeals to the High Court. To the extent, the provision reads as follows:
"30. Appeals.--(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely--
(a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half-monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum;
(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty under Section 4-A;
(b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half-monthly payment;
(c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant;
(d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 12; or
(e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions:
Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and, in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to 1 (2017) 1 SCC 45 LNA,J CMA No.431 of 2023 7 in clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees:"
(emphasis supplied) xxx
10. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to reappreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act."
15. The similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in North East Karnataka Transport Corporation v. Smt. Sujatha 2. The Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"9. At the outset, we may take note of the fact, being a settled principle, that the question as to whether the employee met with an accident, whether the accident occurred during the course of employment, whether it arose out of an employment, how and in what manner the accident occurred, who was negligent in causing the accident, whether there existed any relationship of employee and employer, what was the age and monthly salary of the employee, how many are the dependants of 2 (2019) 11 SCC 514 LNA,J CMA No.431 of 2023 8 the deceased employee, the extent of disability caused to the employee due to injuries suffered in an accident, whether there was any insurance coverage obtained by the employer to cover the incident, etc. are some of the material issues which arise for the just decision of the Commissioner in a claim petition when an employee suffers any bodily injury or dies during the course of his employment and he/his LRs sue(s) his employer to claim compensation under the Act.
10. The aforementioned questions are essentially the questions of fact and, therefore, they are required to be proved with the aid of evidence. Once they are proved either way, the findings recorded thereon are regarded as the findings of fact.
11. The appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner lies only against the specific orders set out in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 30 of the Act with a further rider contained in the first proviso to the section that the appeal must involve substantial questions of law.
12. In other words, the appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner is not like a regular first appeal akin to Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which can be heard both on facts and law. The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the appeal is confined only to examine the substantial questions of law arising in the case."
LNA,J CMA No.431 of 2023 9
16. Following the above decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Shyam and another 3, observed that "it is the settled position of law that limited jurisdiction has been given to the High Court confined to the substantial question of law only and the High Court cannot venture and re-appreciate the evidence and finding of fact recorded on the evidence led by both the parties."
17. The Commissioner, on due consideration of the evidence, material placed on record, specifically, Ex.A3-final report filed by the Police and Ex.A3-postmortem report of the deceased, had come to conclusion that deceased while working as cleaner under the opposite party no.1 had expired during the course of employment while discharging duties. This Court does not find any reason or ground to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner.
18. In view of the above discussion, evidence, material placed on record and the legal position, the Commissioner had rightly awarded the compensation amount and there are no grounds to interfere with the said award by this Court. 3 2022 SCC Online Raj 1639 LNA,J CMA No.431 of 2023 10
19. Insofar as awarding of interest at 12% is concerned, as per the recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjali and others vs Lokendra Rathod and others 4, decided on 06.12.2022, had granted interest @ 9% per annum. In view of the above decision, in considered opinion of this Court that interest at the rate of 12% per annum awarded by the Commissioner is on higher side. Therefore, the same is revised to 9% per annum.
20. From the above factual background and discussion, in considered opinion of this Court, the appellant failed to make out any case warranting interference of this Court with the award passed by the Commissioner, except the rate of interest granted by the Commissioner, which is revised to 9% per annum instead of 12% per annum.
21. In the result, this C.M.A. is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand closed.
__________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 19.02.2024 kkm 4 2023(1) ALD 107(SC)