New India Assurance Company ... vs Smt Gogula Lakshmi 4 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 3986 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

                         C.M.A. No.494 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the

Insurance Company against Order dated 26.08.2006 in W.C. No.36

of 2005 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation

and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Eluru.

2. Heard.

3. The legal heirs of the deceased filed the claim petition before

the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant

Commissioner of Labour, Eluru, claiming compensation for the

death of the deceased under Workmen Compensation Act, 1923

(for short the "Act"). After considering the evidence of both sides

the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has

awarded an amount of Rs.4,26,337/- for the compensation claimed

for Rs.6,00,000/-

4. The learned Commissioner, after following the due procedure

has allowed the claim application and the present appeal is filed by

the insurance company aggrieved by the said order on the ground

that the Order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation

is contrary to Section 4 of the Schedule IV of the Act.

5. The first and foremost contention of the Appellant-Insurance

Company is that the deceased who drove the crime vehicle has no

valid driving licence.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant in order to

substantiate the case referred to the order passed by the

Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and stated that the

summon was issued to the transport authority for production of

the driving licence of the deceased employee. Despite serving

summon, he has not produced the particulars of the driving licence

of the deceased.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents

submitted that the burden is upon the appellant-insurance

company who averred that the deceased driver is not having valid

driving licence and he referred to the order of the Commissioner for

Workmen's Compensation and stated that as per the judgments in

"United India Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Mohd Ashique asnd others"1

and another decision in "Oriental Insurance Co., Limited Vs. Usha"2

the burden is upon the insurance company and they have not

discharged their burden by examining the concerned authority,

where the burden lies on the insurance company.

8. Be that as it may, on going through the record, it is evident

that the applicants have produced valid driving licence of the

deceased employee which was marked as Exhibit A4, by the

Commissioner's Workmen.

9. The second contention is that the award of the

Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is not in accordance

with Section 4 and Schedule IV of the Workmen's Compensation

Act, 1923.

10. Section 4 of the Act, envisages the amount of compensation

which is payable to the dependent of the deceased. As per the

averments in claim petition, the deceased was 26 years of age at

1998 ACJ 589

1996 ACJ 838

the time of his death and he was earning an amount of Rs.4,000/-

per month apart from batta of Rs.50/- per day. Despite the claim

made by the claimants, the Commissioner has taken the

G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 27.07.2000 towards wage of the deceased for

awarding compensation and relying on the FIR, postmortem

certificate he has taken the age of the deceased as 25 years.

11. Accordingly, he has taken the factor as per Schedule IV of

the Act and awarded compensation. Therefore, there is no

irregularity committed by the Commissioner while awarding

compensation. Both the grounds raised by the counsel for the

appellant that the deceased driver is not having valid driving

licence and the compensation awarded to the claimants is not in

accordance with Section 4, Schedule IV, has categorically dealt by

the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation and awarded the

compensation to the claimants and family members of the

deceased, who are legal heirs of the deceased.

12. Both the issues do not fall under Section 30 of the

Workmen's Compensation Act. The said issues are purely disputed

facts and which were categorically answered by the Commissioner

for Workmen's Compensation. There is no substantial question of

law involved in the present grounds raised, to meddle with the

order of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation. Hence, the

appeal filed by the Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed.

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

costs.

_______________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 14-07-2022 Harin

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

C.M.A. No. 494 of 2009 Date: 14-07-2022

Harin