The New India Assurance Company vs Yeddulapalli Poojalaiah Anr.
2022 Latest Caselaw 3222 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

                       C.M.A.No. 1090 of 2008

JUDGMENT:

This Appeal is filed aggrieved by the Order dated 30.06.2005,

in W.C.No.51 of 2005 on the file of the Commissioner for

Workmen's Compensation and the Assistant Commissioner of

Labour, Cuddaph.

2. The parties are arrayed as per the ranking in W.C.No.51 of

2005.

3. The appellant herein-opposite party no.2 filed the W.C.No.51

of 2005 before the Commissioner's Workmen, claiming

compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per

annum.

3. The case of the applicant-claimant is that during the course

of the employment with the Opposite Party No.1, he sustained

injuries on his lower lip on left side, posterior aspect of right fore

arm, right thigh and left shoulder. Due to the said injuries, he is

unable to attend coolie works as prior to the accident. Hence, he

prayed to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation for the

injuries sustained by him in the accident as per the provisions of

the Workmen's Compensation Act.

4. The owner of the vehicle-opposite party no.1 was made

ex-parte in the W.C case.

5. The Insurance company-opposite party no.2, filed the

counter affidavit, denying the averments in the claim petition. He

further contended that the terms and conditions of the insurance

policy have been violated, and as such, the insurance company is

not liable to indemnify the applicant.

6. After considering the oral and written arguments, the

petitioner was awarded an amount of Rs.59,730/- as

compensation with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of

accident till realization.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the

Commissioner ought not to have granted the compensation to the

injured/claimant or the Doctor has never treated the applicant or

examined the case sheet. It is the further case of the appellant

that the opposite party no.1, who is the owner of the vehicle has

violated the policy conditions. The applicant has agitated these two

grounds before this Court to set aside the Order dated 30.06.2005

passed by the Commissioner's Workmen.

8. The Doctor was cross-examined by the opposite party no.2,

who is the insurance company, as AW2 and he denied the

suggestions made by the insurance company stating that he has

not treated the applicant-claimant. He also denied the suggestion

that the claimant was examined only for the purpose of obtaining

the disability certificate and he assessed the disability of the

injured claimant as 20% and issued the certificate.

9. RW1, who was examined on behalf of the insurance

company admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the

enforcement of the policy and he also admitted that there was no

mention about the categories of the employees.

10. After considering the testimonies of the Doctor-AW2 and

RW1, the Commissioner's Workmen has rightly passed an award

granting an amount of Rs.59,730/- and the grounds raised by the

appellant-insurance company come under the purview of the

Section 30 of the Act and as there are no substantial questions of

law involved and as the grounds raised by the appellant are purely

question of fact which were categorically answered by the

Commissioner's Workmen, I found, no reasons to interfere with

the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's

Compensation and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour,

Cuddaph.

11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No

costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

______________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 01.07.2022 Psr/EPS

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

CMA No.1090 OF 2008

Date: 01.07.2022

Psr/EPS