Telangana High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Smt. V. Shantamma on 8 November, 2022
Bench: Sambasivarao Naidu
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
C.M.A.NO.299 of 2022
JUDGMENT :
The appellant herein is second opposite party in a
Workmen's Compensation case vide W.C.No.20 of 2014 on the file
of Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant
Commissioner of Labour II, Hyderabad. Being aggrieved by the
order of the learned Commissioner in the above referred
workmen's compensation case by which the Commissioner fixed
liability to pay compensation on the appellant herein along with the
owner of the vehicle, the Insurance Company preferred the
present appeal on the following grounds :
2. The appellant has claimed that the order of the learned
Commissioner is contrary to law, weight of evidence. The learned
Commissioner should have seen that there is no liability for
payment of any compensation by this appellant. But he wrongly
awarded compensation by fixing liability against the appellant to
pay Rs.4,95,136/-. It seems from the grounds of the appeal itself
that the learned Commissioner while awarding compensation fixed
liability against the insurance company for an amount of
Rs.4,95,136/- and directed the owner of the vehicle to pay
2 SSRN,J
C.M.A. No.299 of 2022
Rs.1,23,409/-. However, the appellant claims that the
Commissioner wrongly considered the claim of
respondents/claimants as if the deceased died during the course
and out of employment, thereby he sought for setting aside the
order.
3. The respondents herein i.e., 1 to 4 are the claimants
i.e., applicants who filed the above referred compensation case
whereas, the 5th respondent is the owner of the vehicle on which
the deceased was working. For better appreciation of the case and
for better understanding, it would be necessary to refer the case of
respondents No.1 to 4 filed before the learned Commissioner.
4. One V.Tirupataiah, who herein after will be referred as
deceased was working as a coolie under the employment of
respondent No.5 herein. Respondent No.1 is the wife, respondents
No.2 and 3 are his children and respondent No.4 is the mother of
the deceased. Respondents No.1 to 4 have claimed that on
19-04-2013 the deceased was on duty as coolie under respondent
No.5 and he, along with other coolies proceeding towards an under
construction railway bridge and he received injuries in an accident.
Later he succumbed to the injuries. The respondents No.1 to 4
have claimed that the deceased along with the co-workers
3 SSRN,J
C.M.A. No.299 of 2022
proceeded on foot to the newly under construction railway bridge
situated in the limits of Kadabahali Village of Hubli, Karnataka
State. Suddenly, a tractor bearing No.KA 25/B-952 which was
driven in high speed, in a rash and negligent manner dashed the
deceased and other co-workers, who suffered grievous injuries.
Therefore, the respondents No.1 to 4 filed the above referred case
for compensation. Both the opposite parties i.e., appellant herein
and owner of the vehicle who is shown as respondent No.5 in the
present appeal made their appearance and filed their respective
counters, and they have disputed the claim.
5. During enquiry, the wife of the deceased has been
examined as AW.1 and she has marked Exs.A1 to A6. The Deputy
Manager of the appellant was examined as RW.1. Exs.B1 to B3
were marked on behalf of appellant. The learned Commissioner,
having considered the pleadings, evidence allowed the claim.
6. Heard both parties.
7. Now the point for consideration is :
Whether the learned Commissioner committed any error by awarding
compensation and in fixing liability against the appellant to pay Rs.4,95,136/-?
8. There was no serious dispute about the employment
of the deceased or about the death in the above referred accident.
The evidence of AW.1 coupled with the documents including the
4 SSRN,J
C.M.A. No.299 of 2022
copy of F.I.R., scene of offence panchanama, post-mortem report
etc., would show that the deceased while working as a coolie
under respondent No.5 received injuries in a road accident and
died while undergoing treatment. There is no dispute about the
insurance policy obtained by respondent No.5 from the appellant
herein. According to the findings in the order, it is very clear that
respondent No.5 obtained the insurance policy from the wages of
deceased @ Rs.5,000/- per month. Therefore, the learned
Commissioner while considering the oral and documentary
evidence and in view of the specific contention, though the salary
of the deceased was fixed as Rs.6,250/- per month, restricted the
liability of the appellant on the basis of Rs.5,000/- per month and
restricted the liability of the appellant to that extent. Even though
the Commissioner came to a conclusion that the respondents No.1
to 4 are entitled to compensation based on the above referred
salary @ Rs.6,250/- per month, separated the liability and directed
the respondent No.5 to pay Rs.1,23,409/- and fixed the liability on
the appellant by taking the salary as Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, there
are no grounds to set aside the order. When there is no dispute
about the employment of the deceased and insurance policy issued
by the appellant covering the liability to an extent of Rs.5,000/-
5 SSRN,J
C.M.A. No.299 of 2022
per month, the appellant cannot escape by saying that there was
no such accident. The evidence placed before the Court clearly
shows that the deceased died in an accident while he was under
the employment of respondent No.5. Therefore, there are no
merits in the appeal.
9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed but without
costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
Date: 08.11.2022
PLV
6 SSRN,J
C.M.A. No.299 of 2022
