Aaldhi Gangaram Anr vs Sri Chinna Ganga Ram Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 1069 Tel

     HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

          C.M.A.Nos.1068 of 2004 & 1203 of 2011


COMMON JUDGMENT:

     Since the issue involved in both the appeals is one

and the same and they are being heard together and

disposed of by way of this common judgment.

2.   For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will

be referred to as arrayed before the Court below.

3.   C.M.A.No.1068 of 2004 is filed by the claimants 1

and 2, who are the parents of deceased-Aaladhi Shankar,

stating that their son was engaged by the 1st respondent-

owner of the vehicle, as driver and he went to duty on

17.7.2002 for cultivating the land of the 1st respondent

and at about 11.00 a.m, the tractor slipped and turned

turtle, due to which, their son received grievous injuries

and died on the spot. Hence, they have filed W.C.No.225

of 2002 before the Commissioner for Workmen's

Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour,

Nizamabad, seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for

the death of their son.

4. The first respondent, who is the owner of the said

vehicle, filed counter-affidavit stating that the deceased

met with an accident while discharging the duties as

driver in his agricultural land and he paid Rs.5,000/- p.m.

towards salary and Rs.50/- as batta and that the said

vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent-Insurance

Company and it was in force as on the date of accident.

The second respondent-Insurance Company also filed

counter by resisting the claim made by the claimants,

denied the allegations including the employment of the

deceased, apart from the age, and income.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Assistant

Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, framed the

following issues.

1. Whether the deceased was a workman within the meaning of the Act and whether he died during the course of employment under opposite party No.1?

2. If so, what is the monthly wages drawn by the deceased workman?

3. What was the age of the workman at the time of his death?

4. Whether the applicants are entitled to compensation?

If so, to what extent?.

6. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants the 2nd

claimant was examined as PW.1 and Exs.A1 to A8 were

marked. On behalf of the respondents, owner of the

vehicle was examined as RW1 and Assistant Divisional

Manager of the Insurance Company was examined as

RW2 and no documents were marked on their behalf.

7. After considering the oral and documentary

evidence, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour,

Nizamabad, awarded a sum of Rs.2,80,295/- as

compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance

Company preferred CMA No.1203 of 2011 and the

claimants filed C.M.A.No.1068 of 2004 seeking

enhancement of compensation.

8. Now, the point for consideration is:

(1)Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, is excessive?

(2)To what extent, the claimants are entitled to?

9. POINT Nos.1 & 2: The deceased was engaged as

driver by the 1st respondent and on 17.07.2002, while

driving the tractor bearing No.AP 25 H 2401 for

cultivating the land of the 1st respondent, the tractor

slipped and turned turtle on the deceased, due to which,

the deceased received grievous injuries and died on the

spot. The mother of the deceased, who was examined as

PW1, in her evidence deposed that her son was having

valid driving licence to drive the Tractor and he died

during the course of his employment. The owner of the

tractor, who was examined as RW1, in his evidence

deposed that the deceased was his driver and he was

holding valid driving licence and he paid Rs.5,000/- per

month as salary and Rs.50/- per day as batta. In his

cross-examination, RW1 stated that he has not filed

appointment letter showing that he employed the

deceased as Driver on his tractor, but he simply stated

that he paid Rs.5,000/- as salary per month and he

denied the suggestion that there is no relationship

between him and the driver as employer and employee.

10. The Insurance Company examined the Assistant

Divisional Manager and he stated that the insured

claimed for own damage for his vehicle, but it was

repudiated as the driving licence was not produced.

Therefore, the Insurance Company issued notice to the

claimants as well as to the owner of the tractor, but they

have failed to produce the same. They also summoned

RTA, but, he did not turn up and submit any driving

licence particulars of the driver and as such, the

Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance

Company contended that the driver of the vehicle has no

valid driving licence and thus, the Insurance Company is

not liable to pay any compensation; that there is no

employee and employer relationship between the

deceased and the owner of the vehicle; that the Assistant

Commissioner of Labour erred in fixing the income of

the deceased at Rs.2,604/- in the absence of any

documentary evidence.

12. Learned counsel appearing for claimants 1 and 2

contended that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour,

Nizamabad, has rightly passed the order and it needs no

interference by this Court. Learned counsel further

contended that the claimants are entitled to interest @

12% p.a from the date of accident till the date of

realization.

13. Considering the evidence of the owner of the

vehicle i.e., 1st respondent and in the absence of contrary

evidence, this Court finds that the Insurance Company is

liable to pay the compensation and the claimants are

entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from the date of

accident till the date of realization.

14. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance

company contended that the insurance company has

already deposited the amount in the Court.

15. In view of the said submission, the claimants are

entitled for the interest @ 12% per annum from the date

of deposit of the amount.

16. Regarding income of the deceased, the owner of the

vehicle-1st respondent stated that the accident occurred

in the year 2002, and as per the Amendment dated

09.01.2010, the deceased is entitled for the maximum

salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. In this case, owner of

the vehicle was examined as RW1, who stated that he

paid Rs.5,000/- p.m. as salary and Rs.50/- as batta. The

Assistant Commissioner considered the salary of the

deceased, as per the minimum wages, fixed the wages of

the workman(deceased) at Rs.2,604/- p.m., and hence, it

needs no interference by this Court. Both the points are

answered accordingly.

17. In the result, the order dated 31.10.2003 passed in

W.C.No.225 of 2002 by the Assistant Commissioner of

Labour, Nizamabad, in all the respects is confirmed and

the claimants are entitled to 12% interest on the

compensation amount from the date of petition till the

date deposit of the amount.

18. Accordingly, C.M.A.No.1203 of 2004 filed by

Insurance Company is dismissed and C.M.A.No.1068 of

2004 filed by the claimants is allowed in part. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

_______________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

08.03.2022.

rkk