The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ... vs Manju Jadhav And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 1432 Tel

     THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

                    C.M.A. No. 2733 of 2004

JUDGMENT:

Heard learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company

Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam and learned counsel for the 1st respondent -

applicant Sri K. Mahender Reddy.

The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging

the order dated 08.12.2003 in W.C.No. 211 of 2003 on the file of

the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and the Assistant

Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad under which a sum of

Rs.1,10,021/- was awarded to the 1st respondent. The applicant-

1st respondent was engaged on the vehicle bearing Registration No.

APJ 822 which met with an accident on 07.04.2002 resulting in

fracture to right leg, both bones of right leg and right leg ankle

apart from head injury. Before the Competent Authority, he

claimed that he was drawing a sum of Rs.4,000/- and is 18-year-

old. FIR was lodged before the police on 07.04.2002. The claimant

was initially treated at Government Hospital, Nizamabad and he

claimed to have incurred a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards medical

expenses. Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. Sri T. Narsing Rao,

Orthopaedic Consultant, who was examined as P.W.2, had

certified that the applicant suffered permanent partial disability at

35% and functional disability to the extent of 40% and loss of

earning capacity as 45%.

The competent Authority, after going through the evidence,

found that there was employer-employee relationship and there

was no reason to reject the medical evidence as the factum of

accident is not in dispute. Considering the same and taking into

account the evidence of P.W.2 to the extent of percentage of

permanent disability and the minimum wages payable under

G.O.Ms.No. 11 at Rs.1800/-, applying the formula, had awarded a

sum of Rs.1,10,021/-.

Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant - insurance

Company though contends that the policy is an act policy and it

does not cover labourers, in terms of Rule 252 of the A.P. Motor

Vehicles Rules, apart from the driver, six persons would be

covered and in that view of the matter there being no dispute of

occurrence of accident and with regard to insurance policy, this

Court does not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the

Competent Authority.

There being no merit in the Appeal, the same is dismissed.

No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 30th April 2021

ksld