Battu Gopal vs Shaik Mahaboob Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 2108 Tel

     THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

C.M.A No. 469 OF 2011 AND C.M.A.No. 610 OF 2012

COMMON JUDGMENT :

C.M.A.No. 469 of 2011 was filed by the applicant - labourer

against the order dated 02.02.2011 in W.C.No. 11 of 2004 NF on

the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and

Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad seeking

enhancement of the compensation. Whereas C.M.A.No. 610 of

2012 was filed by the Insurance Company questioning the order

under Appeal mainly on the ground that the policy did not cover

the labourers, hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay

the compensation.

As both the Appeals arise from the same order, they are

being disposed of with this common order.

The case in brief is that, the applicant was employed by

Sri Shaik Mahaboob - owner of the lorry bearing Registration No.

AAJ 8025; on 06.04.2003, during the course of employment, he

met with an accident and sustained multiple fractures and

injuries; therefore, a claim was made for Rs.3 lacs towards

compensation; the applicant was aged about 35 years at the time

of accident and he claimed to have earning Rs.3,000/- per month

as salary. The learned Authority granted compensation of

Rs.1,42,614/-, to be deposited in 30 days.

Learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company

Sri Kota Subba Rao submits that the Authority had failed to

appreciate that the Insurer is not liable to pay compensation

under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and the labourer is

not covered under the Act as per the policy. He contends that the

policy covers only risk of one driver and cleaner and with respect

to others, unless extra premium is paid, under Section 64VB of

the Insurance Act, 1938, no liability can be fastened on the

Insurance Company.

Learned counsel for the applicant resisted the same and

submits that the Appeal would lie only when a substantial

question of law arises and there being no substantial question of

law, in the light of the finding recorded by the Authority, he seeks

dismissal of the Insurance Company Appeal. However, the learned

counsel restricts his claim in C.M.A.No. 469 of 2011 only for

interest component in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court

in Oriental Insurance Company v. Siby George1.

Having considered the respective submissions, the issue

whether the insurance company is liable to pay for the labourers is

no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court

in National Insurance Company v. Prembai Patel2. The other

question urged by the learned Standing Counsel does not require

much consideration as the Authority had recorded finding on

coverage, disability and also on loss of earning capacity. So far as

the interest component is concerned, the learned Standing

Counsel fairly concedes that it is to be paid @ 12% per anum from

one month from the date of accident till the date of deposit.

(2012) 12 SCC 540

(2005) 6 SCC 172

In the light of the above, C.M.A.No. 610 of 2012 is dismissed

and C.M.A.No. 469 of 2011 is allowed in part in view of the

judgment of the Apex Court in Siby George's case, granting

interest on the compensation amount @ 12% per anum from one

month from the date of accident till the date of deposit. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 15th July 2021

ksld