Telangana High Court
The National Insurance Company ... vs Vennaboina Tata Rao Another on 12 November, 2021
Bench: P.Madhavi Devi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.615 OF 2007
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the National
Insurance Company Limited, i.e., Opposite Party No.2 in W.C.No.3
of 2003 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Khammam.
The challenge is against the award passed therein dt.31.03.2005
directing the appellant to pay the 1st respondent herein a sum of
Rs.95,372/- as compensation with interest at 12% per annum after 30
days of the date of the accident till realisation of the compensation.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the claimant
before the Commissioner was a driver and was in the employment of
Opposite Party No.1 in the W.C. and was proceeding on duty towards
Paloncha from Khammam with a load of Urea on 09.10.2002 at
midnight for unloading, in the vehicle bearing No.APK 7322, under
the instructions of Opposite Party No.1. When the vehicle reached in
between Julurpadu and Dandumitta Thanda, he met with an accident
and sustained injuries. The claimant filed the claim before the
Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act and claimed
that he was drawing a salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. He thus claimed
a lump sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries
sustained by him. The Opposite Party No.1 admitted before the
Commissioner that the claimant was his driver and he was paying a
sum of Rs.2,600/- per month towards his salary. After considering that
the accident has taken place during the course of the employment of
the claimant with Opposite Party No.1; that the vehicle was insured
under the insurance policy which was in force during the said period;
that the minimum wages payable to the claimant under the Minimum
Wages Act was Rs.3,427/- and his disability was at 25% (though no
certificate has been given by the Medical Board), the Commissioner
awarded compensation of Rs.95,372/-. Against the same, the
insurance company is in appeal before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant, Sri N. Sunil Kumar,
submitted that though Opposite Party No.1 has given evidence to the
effect that he is paying a salary of Rs.2,600/- per month to the
claimant, the Commissioner has erred in holding the wages to be at
Rs.3,427/- per month and also in fixing the disability at 25%. He
submitted that it is the Medical Board which has to assess and certify
the disability of the claimant and in the absence of any such evidence,
the Commissioner ought not to have granted any compensation
towards disability.
4. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent, Ms. G. Jhansi, and
the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Sri M. Surender Rao, were
also heard.
5. This Court finds that the dispute is only with regard to the
quantum of wages adopted by the Commissioner and the percentage
of disability. As far as the wages are concerned, this Court finds that
the Commissioner has adopted the minimum wages as is payable
under G.O.Ms.No.30 dt.27.07.2000 and therefore, this Court does not
find any reason to interfere with the same.
6. So far as the disability is concerned, though the petitioner has
not filed any certificate from the Medical Board, he has filed the
disability certificate issued by the doctor who has treated him. The
doctor was examined and had admitted that he has assessed the
claimant's disability at 25%. However, it was also stated that the
claimant has fully recovered and was fit for normal avocations.
Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the disability of 25% is not
established and the compensation paid towards such disability cannot
be allowed. Therefore, the award of the Commissioner to that extent is
set aside.
7. In the result, the CMA is partly allowed. No order as to costs.
8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this CMA shall stand
closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
Dt. 12.11.2021
Svv
