Telangana High Court
Syed Sajid vs Sri Eravahri Murali on 23 June, 2021
Bench: Challa Kodanda Ram
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3417 of 2003
AND
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2076 of 2004
COMMON JUDGMENT:
These appeals emanate from the order dated 22.05.2003 passed
by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Nizamabad, in
W.C.Case No.328/97 (NF), granting a total compensation of Rs.97,796/-
to the workman/claimant for the injuries he suffered in a motor vehicle
accident that occurred on 21.01.1997 during the course of employment.
C.M.A.No.3417 of 2003 is filed by the claimant being aggrieved by
the quantum of compensation; and C.M.A.No2076 of 2004 is filed by the
insurance company challenging the very grant of compensation itself. As
the appeals are connected, they are heard together and are being
disposed of by this common judgment.
Brief facts of the case are that the workman/claimant filed a claim
petition, W.C.Case No.328/97 (NF), before the Commissioner stating that
on 21.01.1997 he was discharging duties as Cleaner on the Jeep bearing
No.AP-25D-121, proceeding from Nirmal to Armoor, and at about 10:30
AM when the Jeep reached Kisan nagar, the driver of the jeep drove the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and lost control of the vehicle, as
a result of which, the vehicle turned turtle resulting in grievous injuries to
the passengers including the claimant. He therefore sought
compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- against the owner of the Jeep-Eravahri
Murali (respondent No.1 in the claim petition), and the insurance
company (respondent No.2 in the claim petition).
2 cma_3417_2003 &
cma_2076_2004
CKR, J
On behalf of the claimant, the witnesses PWs.1 and 2 were
examined; and the documents Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of
the respondents, none was examined however the documents Exs.B1 and
B2 were marked.
The Commissioner, after taking into consideration the oral and
documentary evidence available, granted a total compensation of
Rs.97,796/- to the claimant, by holding both the owner and insurance
company jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
Heard Sri K.M. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the claimant;
and Sri E. Venugopal Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the insurance
company.
Learned counsel Sri K.M. Mahender Reddy submits that the
claimant is employed as Cleaner on the Jeep bearing No.AP-25D-121,
and in the accident he suffered permanent partial disability. Learned
counsel contends that the Commissioner, under the Workmen's
Compensation Act, determined the compensation by fixing the loss of
earning capacity at 40% whereas the claimant is entitled to a higher
compensation as the functional disability is 100% and further the
claimant is entitled to interest on the compensation amount.
On the other hand, Sri E. Venugopal Reddy, learned Standing
Counsel, by relying on Ramashray Singh Vs. New India Assurance
Co. Ltd1, contends that the claimant being a Cleaner on the Jeep, he is
not entitled to any compensation in the first place as the policy does not
cover the Cleaner and further the Statute does not mandate the Cleaner
to be covered under the policy, and therefore the very grant of
compensation is unsustainable and illegal.
(2003) 10 SCC 664
3 cma_3417_2003 &
cma_2076_2004
CKR, J
Having considered the respective submissions, and perusing the
record and also the judgment of the Hon' ble Supreme Court in
Ramashray Singh (1 supra), the matter is squarely covered by the
judgment in Ramashray Singh (1 supra). It may further be noted that
even on facts there is no material to support the claim of the claimant
with respect to 100% functional disability as against Ex.A4-the Disability
Certificate issued by PW.2-Doctor certifying the disability at 40%.
In view of there being no insurance coverage to the claimant and
in view of the judgment in Ramashray Singh (1 supra), the granting of
compensation itself is without jurisdiction and therefore the question of
enhancement of compensation, and also payment of interest, does not
arise, and the appeal of the claimant is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, C.M.A.No.3417 of 2003 filed by the workman/claimant
is dismissed; and C.M.A.No.2076 of 2004 filed by the insurance company
is allowed. However, the compensation amount that has already been
withdrawn by the claimant shall not be recovered from the claimant; and
the compensation amount lying with authority shall be refunded to the
insurance company. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending
in these appeals, shall also stand closed.
_____________________
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J
23rd June, 2021
ksm
4 cma_3417_2003 &
cma_2076_2004
CKR, J
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3417 of 2003
AND
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2076 of 2004
23rd June, 2021
ksm
