Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ramavath Bujji vs A.P. Genco on 9 February, 2024
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.58 of 2022
JUDGMENT:
The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under
Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for
brevity "the Act") aggrieved by the order dated 31.08.2021,
passed in E.C.No.06 of 2018 by the learned Commissioner for
Employees Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of
Labour, Narasaraopet. (for short "the Commissioner").
2. The Appellants herein are the applicants/claimants
and the respondents herein are the Opposite Parties in E.C
No.06 of 2018. For sake of convenience, the parties are
hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the
Commissioner.
3. The applicants have filed the impugned E.C.No.06 of
2018 before the Commissioner claiming compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/- in respect of death of the workman Late Redya
Naik, S/o Bodya Naik (hereinafter referred to as "the
deceased") under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in the
course of his employment under the Opposite Party No.2. The
facts of the case are that on 01.11.2016 at about 12.00 p.m.
while the deceased was on duty at 13th gate of Dam gallery and
at 12.30 p.m., it was informed by one Ramanji that the
deceased was found unconscious on the floor at Dam gallery
site and immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Macherla
and the doctor confirmed that the deceased died and the same
was informed to the Rentachintala P.S and thereafter a case in
Crime No.96 of 2016 was registered. Postmortem was also
conducted on the body of the deceased and in that report, it
was clearly mentioned that the cause of death is due to
"Electric Shock". The deceased was aged 35 years and getting
salary of Rs.10,500/- p.m. The applicants have issued legal
notices to the Opposite parties requesting for compensation,
but in vain. Hence, the present application.
4. The Opposite Party No.3 filed their counter while
denying the allegations made in the application, stated that, as
per the FIR, the deceased was fits patient and due to illness he
frequently fells down due to fits. No ill health person be
employed for labour work and there is no mention about
electric shock as well as casual labour in the FIR. The
Opposite Party No.2 has not submitted the name of the
deceased to them and no policy was covered casual labour
employees as such the application is not maintainable. It is
further stated that the amount of compensation claimed by the
applicants is highly excessive and without any basis.
Therefore, prayed to dismiss the application filed by the
applicants.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Commissioner
has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of
the Act and he died due to personal injuries he received in an
accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, or
not, under Opposite party No.1?
2. Amount of compensation payable to the claimants?
3. Who are liable to pay the compensation?
6. During course of trial, on behalf of the applicants,
AW.1 and AW.2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were
marked. On behalf of the Opposite parties, RW.1 and RW.2
were examined and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B3.
7. The learned Commissioner, after hearing on both
sides passed an order holding that the Opposite Parties No.1 to
3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation being the
Principal Employer, Contractor and Insurer as per the
provisions of the Employees Compensation Act 1923. Hence
directed the parties to deposit an amount of Rs.7,64,780/- by
means of Demand Draft drawn in favour of Commissioner for
Employees' Compensation, Guntur on State Bank of India,
Guntur within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order
and submit the DD in the office for further action. Challenging
the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal came to be
filed by the applicants.
8. Heard Sri K. Venkata Rama Rao, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants and Sri M. Vidya Sagar, Sri T.S.
Rayalu and Sri Dilip Jayaram, learned counsels appearing for
the respondents.
9. On hearing, learned counsel for the appellants
contended that the order passed in E.C No.6 of 2018 in so far
as not granting total compensation and the interest thereon, is
concerned, is contrary to law and facts and circumstances of
the case. He contended that the learned Commissioner ought
to have taken the age of the deceased employee as 32 years
instead of 37 years and he also ought to have granted the total
compensation as claimed in the said E.C. together with
interest thereon, instead of granting compensation amount of
Rs..7,64,780/- without granting any interest for the said
compensation amount. Therefore, learned counsel requests
this Court to consider the said facts and allow the appeal by
relying on the substantial question of law, which reads as:
i) Whether the learned Assistant Commissioner of Labour is
right in not granting the interest for the compensation
amount awarded in the order dated 31.8.2021 passed in
E.C.No.06 of 2018?
ii) Whether the learned Assistant Commissioner of labour
has failed to grant interest at 12% per annum from the date
of filing the case i.e., on 1.11.2016 on the compensation
amount of Rs.7,64,780/- awarded in the order dated
31.8.2021 passed in E.C No.6 of 2018?
10. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the
appellants has relied upon the following decisions:
(i) In a case reported in K. Sivaraman and others
versus P.Sathishkumar and another1 and (ii) Ajaya Kumar
Das and another vs Divisional Manager and another2,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "the benefit of
the amending act enhancing the quantum of compensation
would not apply to accidents that took place prior to the coming
into force of the amendment."
(iii) And in another case reported in The Divisional
Manager, MM/s. United India Insurance Company Limited
versus Harijana P.Israil and others3, wherein the Andhra
Pradesh High Court held that - the claimant is entitled for
interest on compensation from the date of accident, till its
(2020) 4 Supreme Court Cases 594
2022 LawSuit(SC)98
Law Finder Doc Id#2010336
payment. If such amount i.e., the compensation with interest
from the date of accident as determined under the award of the
Commissioner is not paid, within one month from the date of
award, the employer would also be further liable for imposition
of penalty as provided under Section 4A(1)(b) of the WC Act, in
cases where the delay in payment of compensation, after one
month from the date of the award is without jurisdiction".
11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents vehemently opposed for grant of relief as claimed
by the applicants/appellants and denied all the allegations
made in the application. He submits that it is an undisputed
fact that the deceased has worked as a casual labour under
the control of Opposite Party No.2/2nd respondent herein. He
submits that while executing certain works under his control,
the 1st appellant's husband late Ramavat Redya Naik ahs fell
down and he was immediately moved to Macherla Government
Hospital for treatment while undergoing treatment he died.
Later PM was conducted to the deceased and the PMC report
was issued on 25.11.2016 by Macherla Government Hospital.
Learned counsel further submits that the appellants have filed
the claim application before the learned Commissioner but the
Commissioner has not considered the contentions raised by
the APGENCO. The 1st respondent/APGENCO has denied the
fact that the deceased was never employed under the
Corporation, hence the liability does not vests with 1st
respondent. Whereas, it was clearly stated that the deceased
was working as casual labour under the control of 2nd
respondent and the 2nd respodne4tn has also paid insurance
for the deceased and the same was marked as exhibits. In
spite of all the evidence filed by the respondents the
Commissioner has passed an order to pay a sum of
Rs.7,64,780/- on 31.8.2021. He further submits that the
respondent Corporation has preferred an appeal against the
orders of the Commissioner and the same was numbered as
WP No.22896 of 2021 which is pending before this Court. In
that Writ Petition, it was clearly stated by the APGECO that
the deceased was never engaged in 1st party corporation
whereas he worked under the control of 2nd party who is
contractor and the 2nd respondent has made an Insurance
Policy and the same was marked as exhibit in E.C. No.6 of
2018. Therefore, there is no liability vests on the APGENCO to
pay compensation since the deceased was never an employee
of the corporation and it is an admitted that the deceased has
worked under the control of 2nd respondent in turn the 2nd
respondent has paid insurance in the name of the deceased.
12. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is observed
that, during the course of examinations, AW1 deposed that
since her husband died during the course of his employment
under OPNo.2 as a casual labour, being the Principal
Employer, Contractor and Insurer all the Opposite Parties are
liable to pay compensation. AW2 deposed that himself and the
deceased were working on the date of incident. As seen from
the examination of RW1, he deposed that their company
issued an Insurance policy to the OP No.2 for the period from
14.10.2016 to 13.11.2016 for coverage of two employees. On
1.11.2016 the deceased was not attended to his duties in
NSTPDHED, Satrasala. He attended his duties upto
31.10.2016 only. As such the death of the deceased is not
covered into the policy because at the time of death of the
deceased status is not as an employee as such OP No.3 is not
liable to pay compensation under the policy. Further as seen
from cross examination, RW2 admitted that the deceased was
died during the course of employment in an accident that
occurred on 1.11.2016 and the muster was made while the
worker was present.
13. It is further observed from the impugned order that,
it was argued by the OP No.3 side that, it is also mentioned in
FIR report about the fits of the deceased prior to the incident.
There is a possibility of the incident through fits. It is a skilled
labour policy and as such the applicants are not entitled for
any relief from the insurance company. It is admitted fact
that the employment, incident, death of the deceased etc were
clearly established in the report of FIR, PM Report and
admission by RW.2 in their evidence and also it is very clear
from the exhibits filed by the appellants. So, it is true that the
deceased was a workman as per the provisions of the Act and
he died due to personal injuries, he received in an accident
arising out of and in the course of his employment under the
2nd respondent/OP No.2 as a casual labour.
14. In a case of "Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi and
Others v. Union of India and Another"4 wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held as follows:
"22. In the instant case, the claim for compensation
accrued on 13.11.98, when Kunhi Moosa, the husband of
the appellant No.1, died on account of being thrown out of
the moving train. The claim before the Railway Claims
Tribunal, Ernakulam (O.A.No.68 of 1999), was filed
2009 ACJ 2444
immediately thereafter in 1999. There was no delay on the
part of the claimants- appellants in making the claim,
which was ultimately granted for the maximum amount of
Rs. 4,00,000/- on 26.03.2007. Even if the appellants may
not be entitled to claim interest from the date of the
accident, we are of the view that the claim to interest on the
awarded sum has to be allowed from the date of the
application till the date of recovery, since the appellant
cannot be faulted for the delay of approximately 8 years in
the making of the award by the Railway Claims Tribunal.
Had the Tribunal not delayed the matter for so long, the
appellants would have been entitled to the beneficial
interest of the amount awarded from a much earlier date
and we see no reason why they should be deprived of such
benefit. As we have indicated earlier, payment of interest is
basically compensation for being denied the use of the
money during the period which the same could have been
made available to the claimants.
23. In our view, both the Claims Tribunal, as also
the High Court, were wrong in not granting any interest
whatsoever to the appellants, except by way of a default
clause, which is contrary to the established principles
relating to payment of interest on money claims.
24. We, therefore, allow the appeal and modify the
order of the High Court dated 24.5.2007 affirming the order
of the trial court and direct that the awarded sum will carry
interest at the rate of 6 per cent simple interest per annum
from the date of the application till the date of the award
and, thereafter, at the rate of 9 per cent per annum till the
date of actual payment of the same".
15. In view of the above foregoing discussion, this Court
is of the opinion that as the deceased was aged 35 years and
getting salary of Rs.10,500/- p.m. during the course of his
employment and that the learned Commissioner has not taken
into consideration the age group of the deceased, without
applying its mind, simply awarded an amount of
Rs.Rs.7,64,780/-. It appears that the Commissioner was
wrong in not granting any interest whatsoever to the
appellants, except by way of a default clause, which is contrary
to the established principles relating to payment of interest on
money claims.
16. Therefore, having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, and on considering the submission
of learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is inclined to
modify the order of the Commissioner dated 31.08.2021,
passed in E.C.No.06 of 2018 and directed that the awarded
sum will carry interest at the rate of 6% simple interest per
annum from the date of application till the date of the award
and thereafter at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of
actual payment of the same.
17. Accordingly, the C.M.A is partly allowed only to the
extent of interest. It is made clear that the respondents are
directed to pay the compensation amount awarded by the
Commissioner along with interest as stated supra within a
period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
18. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous
applications shall stand closed.
______________________________
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 09-02-2024
Gvl
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.58 of 2022
Date : 09 .02.2024
Gvl
