Telangana High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Hyd vs S. Obul Reddy, Hyd And Ano on 21 June, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.488 of 2013
JUDGMENT:
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.03.2013 passed in W.C.No.105 of 2010, on the file of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-II, Hyderabad (hereinafter be referred as 'the Commissioner'), the opposite party No.2/Insurance Company filed the present Appeal seeking to set-aside the order passed by the learned Commissioner.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Commissioner.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, who is the husband of the deceased-Smt.S.Ramanamma @ Ravanamma, filed a petition under the provisions of the Employees' compensation Act, 1923 seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- from the opposite parties 1 & 2 on account of the death of the deceased in an accident that occurred on 10.10.2009. It is stated by the applicant that the deceased used to work as 'Labourer' under the employment of Opposite 2 MGP,J CMA.No.488 of 2013 party No.1 on her Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos.AP-27AC- 5351 and AP-27AC-5352 and on 10.10.2009, when the deceased was on duty as Labourer on the said Tractor and Trailer and was proceeding from Thetupeta Village towards Murugamy Village side and when reached the outskirts of Murugamy Village, the driver of the said Tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed. As a result, the Tractor-Trailer turned turtle and the deceased sustained severe injuries on both limbs and multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately, she was shifted to Vijaya Hospital, Ongole, where she underwent treatment as inpatient and was discharged and later, as her condition became very serious, she was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and while undergoing treatment, she died on 12.11.2009. Based on a complaint, Police of Chilkalguda Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.685 of 2009 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The applicant stated that the deceased was being paid wages @ Rs.4,500/- per month and was aged about 45 years as on the date of her death. He also stated that as the said Tractor and Trailer were insured with opposite party No.2 vide policy bearing No.150901/31/09/01/00001449 for the 3 MGP,J CMA.No.488 of 2013 period from 28.08.2009 to 27.08.2010 covering the date of accident, hence, opposite party No.1, being the owner and opposite party No.2, being the Insurance Company, both are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
4. Opposite party No.1, who is the owner of the subject Tractor and Trailer, though received notice, did not appear before the Commissioner nor contested the case. Hence, she was set exparte.
5. Opposite party No.2/Insurance company filed its counter denying all the averments made in the claim application including, employment, wage, batta paid, age, occurrence of the accident and also employer-employee relationship, specifically denied Driving License of driver of the subject Tractor and Trailer at the time of accident and also insurance policy covering the risk of the deceased and further contended that the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and hence, prayed to dismiss the claim against it.
6. In support of his case, the applicant No.1 was examined as AW1. He filed an affidavit in lieu of his chief examination 4 MGP,J CMA.No.488 of 2013 wherein he reiterated the contents made in the claim application and got marked Exs.A1 to A10 on his behalf. Ex.A1 = Ex.A2 is the FIR. Ex.A3 is the inquest report. Ex.A4 is the Death certificate. Exs.A5 & A6 are the copies of RC of Tractor and Trailer. Ex.A7 is the Driving License. Ex.A8 is the Insurance policy. Ex.A9 is the Discharge Summary. Ex.A10 is the Hospital Bill. During his cross-examination by 2nd opposite party/Insurance company, he said that he had not filed any documentary proof to show that the deceased was getting salary of Rs.4,500/- per month. He denied the suggestion that the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation and that he is deposing false.
7. As opposite party No.1 remained exparte, none of the witnesses were examined on her behalf.
8. On behalf of opposite party No.2, RW1, who is working as Administrative Officer in Opposite party No.2/Insurance Company was examined. He stated that Opposite party No.1 had not informed the Insurance company about the alleged accident, which is the basic duty of the insured and even after receipt of notice by opposite party No.1, she failed to clarify 5 MGP,J CMA.No.488 of 2013 the relationship of the applicant with them and hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. He also contended that as per police records, the deceased was traveling as an unauthorized person and there was no nexus between the death of the deceased and the employment of the deceased. He also stated that the opposite party No.1 did not pay any premium to cover the risk of the labourer under the policy and that no salary slip was filed by the claimants to show that the deceased was engaged by opposite party No.1 and in view of the above circumstances, opposite party No.2 is not liable to indemnify opposite party No.1 and requested to dismiss the claim against it.
9. RW1, in support of his evidence, got marked Ex.B1- Insurance policy on behalf of opposite party No.2. During his cross-examination by the applicant, he accepted that as per FIR, inquest report and complaint, the deceased died while she was traveling on the subject Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos.AP-27AC-5351 and AP-27AC-5352 to attend the coolie works at Murugami village. He also accepted that the Insurance company collected premium for the trailer and the insurance policy was valid as on the date of accident. He also 6 MGP,J CMA.No.488 of 2013 accepted that he did not file any document to show that the deceased was traveling as an unauthorized passenger.
10. The learned Commissioner, after considering the entire evidence and documents available on record, awarded compensation of Rs.3,07,292/- together with interest @ 12% per annum which is payable by both the opposite parties from the date of accident till the date of realization.
11. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal is filed by opposite party No.2/Insurance Company.
12. Heard both sides.
13. The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company are that the deceased traveled on the subject insured tractor and trailer as an unauthorized passenger and there do not exist any employee-employer relationship between opposite party No.1 and the deceased and also contended that the learned Commissioner erred in relying Ex.A3-Inquest report for the purpose of age of the deceased and was not justified in deciding the wages in the absence of legally acceptable oral and documentary evidence 7 MGP,J CMA.No.488 of 2013 and hence, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Commissioner. Learned counsel also relied upon certain decisions which are reported in 2023 ACJ 1405, MANU/TN/6503/2018 and etc. wherein the appeals filed by Insurance Company were allowed on the ground of violation of policy conditions.
14. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1/applicant contended that the Commissioner, after taking into consideration the entire evidence and documents available on record, awarded reasonable compensation for which interference of this Court is unwarranted. Learned counsel, in support of his contention, relied upon a decision passed by this Court in CMA.No.65 of 2010 wherein the applicants were awarded compensation along with interest @ 12% per annum.
15. Now the points for determination are as follows:
1. Whether the applicant is entitled for compensation?
2. Whether the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 are liable to pay compensation?8
MGP,J CMA.No.488 of 2013 Points 1 & 2:
16. This Court has perused the evidence and documents available on record. There is no dispute about the accident that occurred on 10.10.2009. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for appellant is that the deceased traveled on the subject insured tractor and trailer as an unauthorized passenger and there do not exist any employee-employer relationship between opposite party No.1 and the deceased. In this connection, it is pertinent to refer to the documents marked under Exs.A2 & A3 i.e., FIR and inquest report and the evidence of RW1 wherein it is stated that the deceased, in order to attend coolie works at Murgami Village, travelled on Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos.AP-27AC- 5351 and AP-27AC-5352 and on the way, she fell down from the said tractor and sustained injuries. Further, Opposite party No.2, except relying on the evidence of Administrative Manager of their Company, did not take any steps to summon opposite party No.1/owner or the driver of the said Tractor and Trailer to prove their contention that the deceased was travelling as an unauthorized passenger. Further, the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 is a welfare legislation 9 MGP,J CMA.No.488 of 2013 and needs to be construed liberally in favour of the workman who suffers employment injury or in favour of the dependants. In the absence of any contrary evidence placed on record to show that the deceased was travelling as an unauthorized passenger, it cannot be said that the deceased was not engaged as labourer on the said tractor and trailer. Hence, the deceased was an employee within the meaning of the Act and died during the course and out of her employment as labourer on the Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos.AP-27AC-5351 and AP-27AC-5352 under opposite party No.1. Further, As per Ex.B1-Insurance policy, premium was collected to cover the risk of the employee working on the said Tractor and Trailer. Therefore, opposite party No.2 cannot escape its liability for payment of compensation.
17. It is also contended that the learned Commissioner erred in relying Ex.A3-Inquest report for the purpose of age of the deceased and was not justified in deciding the wages in the absence of legally acceptable oral and documentary evidence. The applicant stated that the deceased was aged 45 years as on the date of accident. The age of the deceased as per Ex.A3-Inquest report is 50 years. Except Ex.A3-Inquest 10 MGP,J CMA.No.488 of 2013 report, there are no other documents evidencing the age of the deceased. In such circumstances, the learned Commissioner considered the age mentioned in Ex.A3-Inquest report while calculating compensation. Though the applicant stated that the deceased was paid wages @ Rs.4,500/- per month, but he could not come up with any statutory wage register evidencing the same. Hence, the learned Commissioner, by applying the minimum rates of wages fixed by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.90, LET & F (Lab-II) Department, dated 28.09.2007 w.e.f.26.10.2007 and the VDA payable thereon, limited the wages of the deceased to Rs.4,000/- per month and by applying the relevant factor as per the age of the deceased, awarded compensation to an amount of Rs.3,07,292/-.
18. This Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Commissioner has rightly discussed all the aspects and awarded reasonable compensation and this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding which is in proper perspective. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
11
MGP,J CMA.No.488 of 2013
19. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed without costs.
20. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 21.06.2024 ysk