Sri Battu Rangayya vs Sri V. Purnachander Rao And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 924 Tel

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 924 Tel
Judgement Date : 23 March, 2021

Telangana High Court

Sri Battu Rangayya vs Sri V. Purnachander Rao And ... on 23 March, 2021

Bench: Challa Kodanda Ram

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

            CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.143 of 2021


JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed against the order dated 27.07.2007 passed by

the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, in W.C.Case No.9/2001

(NF). The appellant herein is the Claimant before the Commissioner.

The appellant/claimant filed the claim petition before the

Commissioner seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by him in a

motor vehicle accident that occurred on 01.03.1999 at Madhavanagar

Village, Nizamabad Mandal and District, while the appellant was

discharging duties as labourer on lorry bearing No.ATJ 4127. The

Commissioner, after considering the evidence adduced, and after

considering that the crime vehicle i.e., Lorry bearing No.ATJ 4127, was

insured with the 2nd respondent-insurance company, and considering that

the appellant sustained the injury in the course of his employment as a

labourer on the lorry of the 1st respondent, awarded a compensation of

Rs.1,20,960/- holding the 1st respondent (owner of lorry) and the 2nd

respondent (insurance company) jointly and severally liable to pay the

compensation.

Aggrieved by the Commissioner not taking into consideration the

wages of the appellant as Rs.3,500/- per month, and also not taking into

consideration the loss of earning capacity of the appellant as 70%, and

also not awarding interest at 24% per annum on the total claim, the

Claimant filed the present appeal.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant. Though

notice was served, there is no appearance filed on behalf of the

respondent insurance company.

                                            2                         cma_143_2021
                                                                           CKR, J

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the

compensation awarded is too low, and the Commissioner having found

that the appellant is a labourer discharging various functions, instead of

taking the wages of the appellant as Rs.3,500/- per month has only

taken Rs.1,800/- per month; and further as against the 70% partial

disability certified by the Doctor under Ex.A4, the commissioner had

taken only 50% as the loss of earning capacity, and the same requires to

be corrected. Learned counsel would also submit that interest has not

been granted as per the Act and thus prays for modification of the order.

Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel for

the appellant, and having perused the record, this Court does not find

any reason to differ with any of the findings with respect to either the

loss of earning capacity, or with respect to minimum wages taken for the

purpose of computation of compensation, which is essentially a question

of fact. The Commissioner had taken into consideration various aspects,

including the nature of injury as evidenced by Ex.B9. In that view of the

matter, no modification is required to be made either to the quantum of

compensation or with respect to any of the findings recorded by the

Commissioner.

However, the appellant is entitled to interest at 12% per annum on

the compensation awarded in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Oriental Insurance Company v. Siby George1, wherein

finality was given with respect to the issue that compensation amount

falls due and payable as on the date of accident. This was in line with

the judgment of Supreme Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v.

Srinivas Sabata2.





    (2012) 12 SCC 540

    (1976) 1 SCC 289
                                        3                          cma_143_2021
                                                                        CKR, J

My learned brother Justice A. Rajasheker Reddy had elaborately

considered all the judgments cited by both the appellants as well as

respondents in C.M.A.No.871 of 2015, including the liability of insurance

company in cases where the appeal against the owner stood dismissed

and the owner having not been made a party respondent. My learned

brother by referring to the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in

Meka Chakra Rao v. Yelubandi Babu Rao @ Reddemma3, had held

that the appellant/claimant is entitled to interest at 12% per annum from

the date of accident till the date of realisation. The judgment of Division

Bench being binding on this Court, and this Court finds no reason to

differ with the rationale in Meka Chakra. Though the compensation

amount is due on the date of accident, the liability to pay interest arises