N.I.A.Co Ltd, Its B.M, Adilabad vs Rathod Noor Singh Nizamabad Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 1651 Tel

     THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

                       C.M.A.No. 658 of 2002
                               AND
                       C.M.A.No.236 of 2004

COMMON JUDGMENT :

      C.M.A. No. 658 of 2002 was filed by the appellant -

applicant against the order dated 19.11.2001 in W.C. No. 51 of

2001 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation

(ACL), Nizamabad, whereas C.M.A.No. 236 of 2004 was filed by the

Insurance Company.

      The case of the applicant was that while he was working as

a cleaner on jeep bearing Registration No. MH-26-1256 under the

respondent -     owner, during the course of employment, he

sustained fracture to right leg and right collar bone, injury on

head and all over the body, resulting which, he is unable to attend

the regular duties. It is stated, the applicant was paid Rs.4,000/-

per month as salary.

The Commissioner, placing reliance on Ex.A3 - Injury

certificate which shows the age of the applicant as 25 years and

Ex.A4 disability certificate, which shows partial permanent

disability as 80%, awarded Rs.1,87,410/- towards compensation

to be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order.

Alleging that the Commissioner ought to have taken the

disability as 100% and ought to have awarded interest on the

amount of compensation from the date of petition till realization,

in view of the Apex Court judgment, the applicant questioned the

order under Appeal.

On the other hand, claiming that the applicant is not a

workman and not covered by the policy of insurance, hence, no

compensation can be granted, the Insurance Company filed the

Appeal.

Heard Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the

Insurance Company and Sri K.M. Mahender Reddy, learned

counsel for the applicant.

C.M.A.No. 658 of 2002

A perusal of the material placed before this Court discloses

that the Competent Authority, after taking into consideration the

evidence adduced and the documents, had fairly granted a sum of

Rs.1,87,410/-. Though the learned counsel for the applicant

strenuously contends that his client was drawing Rs.4,000/- per

month as salary, admittedly, no proof was placed before the

Authority. It may be noted that the claim of the applicant was that

he was a cleaner on a jeep which is technically a personal

passenger vehicle. The Commissioner also considering the fact

that at the relevant point of time, the ceiling that could be taken

on wages being Rs.2,000/-, had taken Rs.1800/- per month for

the purpose of calculation of compensation. In those

circumstances, there is no other material which warrants this

Court to enhance the compensation, as claimed by the applicant,

however, as no interest is awarded, the applicant is entitled for the

interest statutorily in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. V. Siby George1, from

2012 ACJ 2126

one month of the date of accident till realization at 12% per

annum.

C.M.A.No. 236 of 2004

A perusal of the grounds raised does not disclose any

substantial question of law as challenge is essentially in respect of

the questions of fact. There is no dispute that the claimant had

suffered injury, as evidenced by the certificates issued by the

competent medical doctors. However, keeping in view the nature of

duties being discharged by the applicant and also keeping in view

the statutory ceiling of Rs.2,000/-, the Authority had fixed the

wages as Rs.1800/- per month. Hence, no interference need be

warranted in the order under appeal on that count.

IN THE RESULT, C.M.A.No. 658 of 2002 is allowed in part

awarding interest at 12% per annum on the amount of

compensation, from one month from the date of the accident till

the date of realization. C.M.A.No. 236 of 2004 is dismissed. No

costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 16th June 2021

ksld