Telangana High Court
M/S.United India Insurance Co ... vs Kannabiona Rajamma And 5 Ors on 21 June, 2024
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: G. Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1356 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company - Opposite Party No.2 (for short ''O.P.2'') aggrieved by the order in W.C.No.39 of 1997 dated 10.08.1999 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation - cum - Assistant Commissioner of Labor, Karimnagar.
2. The respondents 1 to 5 are the applicants and the respondent No.6 is the opposite party No.1 (for short ''O.P.1.'') - Owner of the vehicle.
3. The parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the Commissioner.
4. The facts of the case as stated by the applicants in their application were that the deceased Kannaboina Odelu was employed by O.P.1 as driver on his jeep bearing No.AP-15-T-1354. On 06.11.1996, on the orders of O.P.1, the deceased workman went to Korapally from Jammikunta by carrying passengers. On return at about 10:00 PM, when he reached the outskirts of Korapally, the jeep turned turtle in the paddy fields of one Polasani Narayana Rao and the driver of the jeep Kannaboina Odelu died on the spot. The Police, Jammikunta registered a case in Crime No.174 of 1996. The claimants filed petition 2 Dr.GRR, J cma_1356_2012 claiming compensation contending that the workman died during the course of and out of employment.
5. They contended that the workman was aged about 28 years and the O.P.1 used to pay Rs.2,000/- per month towards wages by the date of accident. As such, filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.2,11,790/-.
6. The O.P.1 filed counter admitting the employment of the deceased as driver on his jeep and that he died in the accident on 06.11.1996 during the course of employment. He stated that the said jeep was insured with O.P.2 under valid insurance policy. But, he contended that he used to pay only Rs.800/- as wages to the deceased workman. He further contended that the accident took place due to the negligence of the workman and he was aged 35 years by the date of the accident.
7. The O.P.2 filed counter and called for strict proof of the petition averments.
8. Basing on the said pleadings, the Commissioner framed the issues as follows:
i) Whether the deceased died during the course of and out of employment or not?
ii) What was the age and wage of the workman at the time of his death?3
Dr.GRR, J cma_1356_2012
9. On behalf of the applicants, the mother of the deceased was examined as PW.1. On behalf of O.P.2, the Assistant Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company was examined as RW.1 and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked on behalf of O.P.2. Ex.R1 was the certified copy of the driving license of the deceased and Ex.R2 was the copy of the insurance policy.
10. The Commissioner on considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the workman was employed by O.P.1 and died during the course of and out of employment. The vehicle was validly insured under Ex.R2. As such, both the O.P.s.1 and 2 were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the dependants of the deceased. The Commissioner considered the age of the deceased as per the driving license marked under Ex.R1 as 34 years and had taken the minimum wages fixed for the employment as driver under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 to calculate the compensation and fixed the monthly wages of the deceased at Rs.1,520/- per month and assessed the compensation payable to the applicants as Rs.1,51,544/- with interest @ 10 % per annum from the date of accident till the date of deposit payable within 30 days from the date of the judgment.
11. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award of the Commissioner, the Insurance Company preferred this appeal contended that the policy did not cover the risk of the driver, employee on a jeep, which was run as a taxi. The 4 Dr.GRR, J cma_1356_2012 Commissioner erred in granting interest @ 10 % per annum and ought not to have taken the wages of the deceased at Rs.1,520/- per month as against the counter filed by O.P.1 that he paid only Rs.800/- per month and prayed to allow the appeal.
12. Heard Sri V.Sambasiva Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company - O.P.1 and Sri Srinivasa Srikanth, the learned counsel for the respondents - applicants
13. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha 1, the appeal provided under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner is not a regular first appeal under 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.
14. The two-Judge Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Golla Rajamma and Others v. Divisional Manager and Another2, held that:
"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 1 2019 11 SCC 514 2 2017 1 SCC 45 5 Dr.GRR, J cma_1356_2012 substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate 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 Hon'ble Apex Court in C.Manjamma v. New India Assurance Company Limited 3 held that the conclusions arrived at by the Commissioner if were a possible view, it extinguishes the possibility of perversity in the findings.
16. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud in K.Sivaraman v. P.Sathish Kumar4 held that:
"25. The 1923 Act is a socio-beneficial legislation and its provisions and amendments thereto must be interpreted in a manner so as to not deprive the employees of the benefit of the legislation. The object of enacting the Act was to ameliorate the hardship of economically poor employees who were exposed to risks in work, or occupational hazards by providing a cheaper and quicker machinery for compensating them with pecuniary benefits. The amendments to the 1923 Act have been enacted to further this salient purpose by either streamlining the 3 (2022) 6 SCC 206 4 (2020) 4 SCC 594 6 Dr.GRR, J cma_1356_2012 compensation process or enhancing the amount of compensation payable to the employee."
17. Considering the provisions under Section 30 of the Act that the Commissioner was the last authority on facts and the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court was confined only to examine the substantial questions of law arising in the case and the conclusions arrived by the Commissioner, even if considered as a possible view, they could not be considered as perversity and considering the object of the Act, wherein a beneficial construction had to be given and the order of the Commissioner would disclose that he considered all the aspects raised by the Insurance Company, it is considered that there is no perversity in the findings of the Commissioner, which would necessitate formulating any substantial questions of law.
18. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation - cum - Assistant Commissioner of Labor, Karimnagar in W.C.No.39 of 1997 dated 10.08.1999. The respondents 1 to 5 - applicants are permitted to withdraw 50% of the decreetal amount lying with the Commissioner to the credit of W.C.No.39 of 1997.
7
Dr.GRR, J cma_1356_2012 No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this appeal, if any shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J Date: 21st June, 2024 Nsk.