Telangana High Court
A.Ram Mohan vs Jpn Gangaram And Another on 20 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.319 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against order dated 04.01.2013 in W.C.No.92 of 2003 (NF) on the file of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation-cum-Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad (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 24.03.2002 and the same was partly allowed by the Commissioner granting compensation of Rs.1,46,894/-. Dissatisfied with the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed at the instance of the applicant before the Commissioner seeking enhancement of compensation and grant of interest.
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 labourer on lorry bearing No.ABK 7788 under the 2 MGP,J CMA_319_2014 employment of opposite party No.1. On 24.03.2002, while the applicant was traveling on the said lorry along with other labourers, after loading sand from Mallaram Gandi to Nizamabad, at about 07:30 PM, when the lorry reached at Mallaram Gandi, near Electric Sub Station, the driver of the lorry driving the same in high speed in rash and negligent manner lost control over the lorry and dashed to a tree, due to which the lorry turned turtle and the accident occurred. The labourers and driver of the said lorry sustained multiple fractures and grievous injuries. The applicant sustained fracture to both bones of fore arm, injuries to left wrist, multiple and grievous injuries to other parts of the body. Immediately, the applicant and others were shifted to nursing home of Dr. L. Ramulu, where he was treated. The applicant incurred an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards medical expenditure. In this regard, a case was registered in Crime No.55 of 2002 on the file of Nizamabad Rural Police Station against the driver of the lorry.
4. It is further the case of the applicant that the said accident occurred during the course and out of his employment as labourer under opposite party No.1. According to the applicant, he was aged about 25 years as on the date of the accident and he was 3 MGP,J CMA_319_2014 being paid an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month towards wages and Rs.30/- per day towards batha by 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. Hence, the present claim application is filed by the applicant seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him.
5. Opposite party No.1 filed his written statement and admitted the employment of applicant under him. He also admitted that he was owner of the lorry bearing No.ABK 7788 and stated that the said vehicle was insured with opposite party No.2 under valid and effective policy as on the date of the accident. He admitted that the applicant was being paid an amount of Rs.2,500/- towards monthly wages and Rs.25/- towards batha per day. He also contended that the lorry involved in the accident was insured with opposite party No.2, as such, if there is any liability opposite party No.2 alone is liable to pay. Therefore, prayed to dismiss case against him.
6. Opposite party No.2 filed its written statement denying the averments of the claim application such as age, wages, 4 MGP,J CMA_319_2014 employment of the applicant under opposite party No.1, occurrence of the accident and also injuries sustained by the applicant. It is also contended that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not 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.
7. 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-7. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by opposite party No.1. On behalf of opposite party No.2, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B-1 was got marked.
8. On the basis of the above pleadings and evidence, the Commissioner framed the following issues:
"1. Whether the injured/applicant A. Ram Mohan met with an accident on 24-03-2002 during the course and out of his employment as Labour on the lorry bearing No.ABK 7788 under the employment of 1 opposite party and sustained injuries?
st
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? And
4. What is quantum of compensation entitled by the applicant?"5
MGP,J CMA_319_2014
9. After considering the evidence and documents filed by both sides, the Commissioner awarded an amount of Rs.1,46,894/- towards compensation to the applicant. Dissatisfied with the same, the present appeal is filed seeking enhancement of compensation by the applicant.
10. Heard, the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for respondent No.2.
11. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant is that the Commissioner erred in not granting interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident on the compensation amount. Hence, prayed to modify the impugned order by allowing the appeal and granting interest.
12. 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 interest and interference of this Court is not necessary.
13. Now the point for determination is as follows: 6
MGP,J CMA_319_2014 "Whether the findings of the Commissioner with regard to determination of interest suffer from any illegality?"
Point:
14. This Court has perused the entire evidence and material placed on record. The applicant got examined himself as A.W.1 reiterating the contents of his claim application. Though, he was cross-examined nothing contrary was elicited in the same. In order to prove the injuries sustained by him, he got examined A.W.2, who is an Orthopedic Surgeon. A.W.2 deposed that he examined the applicant and also verified the previous medical record and found mal-united fracture of left fore arm bones pain and suffering. He issued disability certificate by assessing the disability at 60% being partial and permanent in nature and determined the loss of earning capacity at 60%. In the cross- examination, he denied all the suggestions, which were put to him by opposite party No.2.
15. Opposite party No.2 got examined its employee as R.W.1. R.W.1 reiterated the contents of the written statement. The evidence of R.W.1 shows that opposite party No.1 got insured the vehicle involved in the accident with them and the policy was valid 7 MGP,J CMA_319_2014 and effective as on the date of accident. He stated that no additional premium was paid to cover the risk of labourer by opposite party No.1. He also stated that the lorry involved in the accident was goods carrying vehicle and traveling of applicant in the said vehicle is violation of terms of policy. In the cross- examination, he denied the suggestion that opposite party No.2 is liable to pay compensation to the labour.
16. The Commissioner after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record by both the sides has rightly came to the conclusion that the applicant was employed under opposite party No.1 and the accident occurred during the course and out of his employment. Based on the evidence of A.W.2 and documentary evidence placed on record by the applicant, the Commissioner rightly assessed the loss of earning capacity at 60%. Further, as R.W.1 admitted that the policy was in force as on the date of the accident, the Commissioner held that both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the applicant.
17. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Commissioner based on the documentary evidence on record has rightly 8 MGP,J CMA_319_2014 determined the age of the applicant as 25 years. Further, though, the applicant claimed that he was being paid an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month towards wages and Rs.30/- per day towards batha, as the applicant has not adduced any cogent and convincing evidence, the Commissioner has rightly taken minimum wages prevailing as on the date of accident for computing the compensation. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Commissioner has awarded just and reasonable compensation. Therefore, interference of this Court into the said aspect is unwarranted.
18. Insofar as rate of interest is concerned, it is apt to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shobha v. The Chairman, Vithalrao Shinde Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, wherein it is held as follows:
"6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court insofar as awarding the interest @ 12% p.a. after the period of expiry of one month from 25.01.2017, is hereby quashed and set aside and it is observed and held that the appellants herein-original claimants shall be entitled to the interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of compensation as awarded by the Commissioner from the date of the incident i.e., 29.11.2009.
Present appeal is allowed accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."9
MGP,J CMA_319_2014
19. In view of the principle laid down in the above said case, it is evident that the applicant is entitled for interest at 12% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of accident. Hence, this Court is inclined to award interest at 12% per annum on the compensation amount granted by the Commissioner from the date of accident.
20. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed by modifying the impugned order passed by the Commissioner to the extent of granting interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident. 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: 20.02.2024 GVR