Telangana High Court
United India Insurance Company Ltd., vs Abdul Hannan , Mehraj Pasha And Another on 26 June, 2025
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.985 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved by order dated 25.07.2014 passed in W.C.No.187 of 2011 on the file of Commissioner for Employees' Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Hyderabad (for short 'the Commissioner').
2. Heard Mr. K.Rajendra Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant. There is no appearance on behalf of respondents, in spite of notice being served.
3. Brief facts:
Appellant herein is Insurance Company (opposite party No.2), respondents herein are applicant and owner (opposite party No.1) before the Commissioner. Applicant was a Driver, employed by opposite party No.1 on vehicle bearing No.GJ 16C 4960. On 22.11.2009, when applicant was proceeding from Shahin Nagar Highway Hotel to Hafeez Babanagar, at about 12:30 a.m. (night) and vehicle 2 JAK, J C.M.A.No.985_2014 reached Highway Hotel, the tyre of the vehicle punctured. Applicant-Driver and Cleaner were replacing the punctured tyre, an unknown motor cycle (coming from Pahadishareef) came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the applicant and Cleaner. Applicant sustained multiple injuries, was shifted to Osmania General Hospital for treatment. A case in Cr.No.482 of 2009 under Section 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') was registered. 3.1 Lorry was insured vide insurance policy bearing No.050302/31/09/02/00007456, valid from 15.10.2009 to 14.10.2010. Applicant claims, he was being paid wages @ Rs.4,000/- per month. He was shifted from Osmania General Hospital to Woodlands Hospital for further treatment, was operated thrice. Applicant claims, because of injuries sustained, he is unable to squat, sit and walk.
An amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is claimed as compensation against opposite party Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. 3.2 Learned Commissioner, considering the evidence of AWs.1 to 4 (for applicant) and Exs.A1 to A11 (marked for applicant), Ex.B1 (for opposite party No.2-Insurance 3 JAK, J C.M.A.No.985_2014 Company), vide order, dated 25.07.2014, held that opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.4,05,506/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 23.12.2009 till the date of realization, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. Challenging the said order, opposite party No.2 (Insurance Company) filed the present appeal.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the vehicle bearing No.GJ 16C 4960 was not involved in the accident and that an unknown motor cycle hit the applicant-Driver and Cleaner of the vehicle is not true. That when vehicle (lorry) is not involved in the accident, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount. It is further submitted that charge sheet is not filed, employer-employee relationship is not established. It is also submitted that Commissioner erred in considering the employer-employee relationship, as if it was in existence/force at the time of accident. It is lastly submitted that vehicle itself is not involved in the accident and the injuries sustained by applicant are not during the 4 JAK, J C.M.A.No.985_2014 course of employment, the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the said amount as directed by the Commissioner is not proper.
5. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, perused the record.
6. On 22.11.2009, the vehicle (lorry), which the applicant was driving, reached Highway Hotel, the tyre of vehicle got punctured. Applicant with Cleaner got down from the vehicle to replace the punctured tyre, while replacing the tyre, an unknown motor cycle coming from the opposite direction dashed the applicant and Cleaner. Applicant sustained injuries, was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, where he was given treatment for 10 days (as in-patient). Applicant was operated three times in Osmania General Hospital and thereafter in Woodlands Hospital. A case in Crime No.482 of 2009 under Section 337 of IPC was registered.
7. Complaint is lodged with a delay of 10 days, Commissioner held that the delay was for a bona fide 5 JAK, J C.M.A.No.985_2014 reason i.e., the complainant (father of the applicant) stated in the complaint that his son's condition was serious, he stayed with his son in Hospital. Medical record of Osmania General Hospital reveals that applicant met with an accident on 22.11.2009 at about 12:30 a.m., sustained injuries and was admitted in the Hospital on the same date at 01:55 a.m. Basing on the medical records, Commissioner rightly observed that the delay was not intentional to foist a false case to claim wrongful compensation.
8. The contention that the applicant is not an employee of opposite party No.1 cannot be accepted. Commissioner recorded that in the cross-examination, AW.1 deposed (accepted) that he was aware of the documents filed, accepted that he has not filed any document to show that Abdul Hannan alias Miraz Pasha are one and the same, accepted that the driving licence is issued in the name of Abdul Hannan. AW.1 deposed that Cleaner (Basheer Khan) also sustained injuries in the accident and that he did not file any proof before the Court/Commissioner to show that 6 JAK, J C.M.A.No.985_2014 he worked under opposite party No.1. AW.1 denied that he fell from motor cycle and sustained injuries, while riding. There was also denial in the cross-examination that opposite party No.1 i.e., owner of the vehicle (Syed Khasim) is related to him. Commissioner held that there was no cross-examination of owner (opposite party No.1) and in the absence of cross-examination, contentions raised cannot be considered.
9. AW.3, billing in-charge in the Woodlands Hospital, was examined on behalf of applicant, she, in her evidence, deposed that a patient by name Mehraj Pasha Hussain was admitted as in-patient from 14.02.2013 and discharged on 18.02.2013 and that he paid an amount of Rs.22,000/- towards hospital charges. Though AW.3 was cross- examined, nothing could be elicited that she was deposing falsely on behalf of applicant.
10. AW.4, Orthopaedic Surgeon, was examined, he stated that Abdul Hannan @ Mehraj Pasha was examined by him on 20.06.2013 and a disability certificate was given on assessment, that the applicant suffered permanent and 7 JAK, J C.M.A.No.985_2014 partial disability at 40%, loss of earning capacity at 100% (Ex.A6). He further deposed that applicant has non-union of fracture of right femur for which bone grafting Ilizarov fixation was applied. He also stated that the applicant has stiffness of knee with range of movements from 00 to 200, whereas normal knee joint movement is from 00 to 1400.
11. None were examined on behalf of opposite parties. Exs.A2 and A3 are discharge summary and follow-up card of Osmania General Hospital reflecting that applicant was admitted in the hospital for treatment of closed fracture shaft femur on 02.11.2009 till 03.12.2009 and that there was follow-up treatment from 09.09.2011 to 16.09.2011. Ex.A4 is the discharge summary of Woodlands Hospital, it reflects that applicant was treated from 14.02.2013 to 18.02.2013 for non-union fracture of shaft femur.
12. With respect to the compensation claimed by applicant, though applicant claimed wages @ Rs.4,000/- per month, he did not produce any valid evidence in support of his claim. Commissioner, on the basis of the minimum wages fixed by the Government of Andhra 8 JAK, J C.M.A.No.985_2014 Pradesh in employment of Private Motor Transport vide G.O.Ms.No.90, 28.09.2007, held basic wage for category of light vehicle driver to be Rs.4,102/- per month with variable dearness allowance of Rs.1,075.20 paise per month (totaling to Rs.5,177.20 paise). Commissioner restricted the wages to Rs.4,000/- per month as per Explanation-II of Section 4 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
13. Basing on the documents (exhibits marked), the evidence adduced, Commissioner rightly concluded that applicant was a Driver, while discharging his duties with Cleaner, was hit by an unknown bike and sustained injuries. That he had a valid, effective driving licence at the time of accident. The physical disability suffered was assessed at 45% and the loss of earning capacity was assessed at 100% with respect to the employment i.e., as a driver when he was injured. Commissioner rightly arrived at a compensation of Rs.4,03,200/- to be paid to the applicant for the injuries suffered for one month from the date of accident till the date of realization. 9
JAK, J C.M.A.No.985_2014
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the scheme of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, in Golla Rajanna and Others v. Divisional Manager and another 1, held as follows:
"10. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The 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 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 said principle/view is reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav and Another v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and Another 2.
16. This Court does not find any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner. No question of law, much less a substantial one, arises for consideration. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed.
1 (2017) 1 SCC 45 2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1105 10 JAK, J C.M.A.No.985_2014
17. For reasons aforesaid, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J Date:26.06.2025 KRR