Telangana High Court

Romala Narsimlu vs K.Sunil Kumar And 2 Others on 12 December, 2023

      HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

       CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.267 of 2013


JUDGMENT:

1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed

against order dated 13.12.2012 in W.C.No.200 of 2004 NF on the

file of the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation-cum-

Deputy Commissioner of Labour at Nizamabad (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Commissioner'). The said case was filed by the

appellant herein seeking compensation for injuries sustained by

him in an accident that occurred on 25.11.2003 and the same was

partly allowed by the Commissioner granting compensation of

Rs.1,75,586/-. Dissatisfied by the said order, the present Civil

Miscellaneous Appeal is filed at the instance of the applicant

before the Commissioner.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter

referred to as they were arrayed before the Commissioner.

3. The brief facts of the case of the applicant are that he filed

the present claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-

on account of injuries sustained by him in an accident that

occurred on 25.11.2003. The applicant was working as labour on

MGP,J CMA_267_2013

van bearing No.MWN-3970 under the employment of opposite

party No.1. While so, on 25.11.2003, the applicant during the

course and out of his employment was traveling on the said van

along with other labourers and when the van reached

Chinthakunta village crossing, main road, Mosra village shivar,

Varni Mandal, the driver of the van drove in rash and negligent

manner, at high speed and lost control over the van, due to which

the van dashed a tractor and fell into a ditch. Due to the said

accident, the applicant along with other labourers, cleaner and the

driver of the van sustained injuries. The applicant sustained

fractures of left leg tibia and fibula, fracture of left shoulder,

fracture of right hand base of 1st metacarpal, fracture of right

ankle medial mallelous, multiple abrasions on right leg, left

shoulder, injuries on head, chest, legs on other parts of the body.

Immediately, he was shifted to Sri Venkateshwara Hosptial,

Nizamabad, where he was treated as inpatient. Thereafter, he

took treatment in various hospitals and incurred an amount of

Rs.80,000/ towards medical expenses. In this regard, a case was

registered in Crime No.139 of 2003 under Section 337 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860, on the file of Varni Police Station.

MGP,J CMA_267_2013

4. It is further contended by the applicant that he was aged

about 40 years as on the date of the accident and was being paid

an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month towards salary and Rs.50/-

per day towards batta. The accident occurred during the course

and out of his employment under opposite party No.1. Opposite

party No.1 being the owner and opposite party No.2 being insurer

of the vehicle involved in the accident are liable to pay

compensation to the applicant for the injuries sustained by him.

Hence, the present claim petition was filed.

5. Opposite party No.1 filed his counter admitting the

employment of the applicant as labourer and also admitted the

accident, which occurred during the course and out of the

employment of the applicant under him. He further stated that he

was paying an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month towards wages

and Rs.25/- per day towards batta to the applicant. He stated

that the van bearing No.MWN 3970 is owned by him and insured

with opposite No.2 under valid and effective insurance policy.

Therefore, if the applicant is entitled for any compensation, the

same is payable only by opposite party No.2.

MGP,J CMA_267_2013

6. Opposite party No.2 filed its counter denying the averments

of the claim petition such as age, wages, manner of the accident,

injuries sustained by the applicant and also employee and

employer relationship between the applicant and opposite party

No.1. As the compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant,

opposite party No.2 prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

7. In support of their case the applicant got examined A.Ws.1

and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. Opposite party No.2 did

not adduce any oral evidence, but got marked Ex.B-1.

8. On the basis of the above pleadings and evidence, the

Commissioner framed the following issues for consideration:

"1. Whether the injured/applicant Romala Narsimlu met with an accident on 25.11.2003 during the course and out of his employment as labour on the van bearing No.MWN-3970 under the employment of 1st opposite party and sustained injuries?

2. If yes, what is the percentage of physical disability and consequent loss of earning capacity suffered by the applicant?

3. Who are liable to pay compensation? and

4. What is the amount of compensation entitled by the applicant?"

9. After considering the evidence and documents filed by both

sides, the Commissioner awarded an amount of Rs.1,75,586/-

MGP,J CMA_267_2013

towards compensation to the applicant. Dissatisfied with the said

order, the present appeal is filed at the instance of the applicant.

10. Heard, both sides.

11. The main contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant/applicant is that though, the applicant has proved his

case by adducing cogent evidence, the Commissioner has only

granted negligible amount towards compensation and furthermore,

interest is also not awarded by the Commissioner.

12. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2/opposite

party No.2 contended that the Commissioner after considering all

the aspects has awarded reasonable compensation and

interference of this Court is unnecessary.

13. Now, the point for determination is as follows:

"Whether the applicant is entitled for enhancement of compensation and grant of interest?"

Point:-

14. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents

placed on record by both the parties. The applicant got examined

MGP,J CMA_267_2013

himself as A.W.1 and reiterated the contents of the claim petition

and deposed about the manner of the accident and his

employment with opposite party No.1. In order to prove injuries

sustained by the applicant, he got examined Dr. Satyanarayana

Anumalla, Orthopaedic Surgeon as A.W.2. His evidence shows

that he is member of medical board and that on 28.10.2012 he

examined A.W.1 and verified the previous medical records and

medical certificate issued to the applicant by Dr. V. Akhilesh,

Ortho Surgeon and found left leg fracture tibia M/3, fracture fibula

M/3, left shoulder fracture acromion, right hand fracture base of

1st metacarpal, right ankle medial malleolar fracture, multiple

abrasions on right leg and left shoulder. A.W.2 examined the

applicant physically and clinically and subjected him for exercises

and found mal-united fractures of both bones M/3 left leg, fracture

left acromion shoulder joint, fracture base of I MC bones right

hand and medial malleolar fracture right ankle joint, pain and

suffering. He assessed the disability at 75% permanent, partial

disability and functional loss of earning capacity at 75% and

issued Ex.A-5 disability certificate. In the cross-examination, he

stated that he has not treated the applicant and he only examined

and issued disability certificate after verifying all the previous

MGP,J CMA_267_2013

medical records. He denied the suggestion that he is not capable

to issue disability certificate and that he assessed the disability on

the higher side to help the case set up by the applicant.

15. It is pertinent to state that the Commissioner after

considering the evidence placed on record rightly considered the

age of the applicant as 40 years and loss of earning capacity at

70%. The Commissioner has considered the wages of the applicant

at Rs.2,259/- as per the minimum rate of wages fixed by the

Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.30 L.E.T. & F (Lab-

II) dated 27.07.2000 and also VDA payable as notified by the

Commissioner of Labour Andhra Pradesh, as the applicant did not

file any income proof. Further, the Commissioner has awarded

just and reasonable compensation for which interference of this

Court is unwarranted.

16. The other contention of learned counsel for the applicant is

that the Commissioner has not awarded any interest on the

compensation amount. In this regard, it is apt to refer to the

MGP,J CMA_267_2013

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Meenaraj

v. P. Adiguruswamy 1, wherein at para No.10, it is held as follows:

"10. As regards the date of commencement of the liability of interest, the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be right that even in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra), this Court has not laid down the law that the interest would be payable only 30 days after the accident. In our view too, the said statutory period of 30 days does not put a moratorium over the liability of interest. Such interest is related with the amount of compensation receivable by the claimant and there appears no reason for not allowing interest for 30 days from the date of accident. In fact, in the referred decisions too, this Court has allowed interest from the date of accident. That being the position, the questioned part of the order of the High Court calls for interference and the same is modified to the extent that the appellant would be entitled to interest from the date of accident."

17. A perusal of the principle laid down in the above said

decision, it is evident that the applicant is entitled for interest at

12% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of

accident till the date of deposit.

18. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by

granting interest at 12% per annum on the compensation amount

awarded by the Commissioner from the date of the accident till the

date of deposit and rest of the findings of the Commissioner in the

Civil Appeal No 209 of 2022, decided on 6 January 2022.

MGP,J CMA_267_2013

impugned order are confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous appeal, if any, shall stand closed.