The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Smt. P. Kalyani And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 298 Tel

          THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

        CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.198 of 2009

JUDGMENT:

1. The present civil miscellaneous appeal has been directed

against award dated 29.10.2004 in W.C.No.102 of 2004 on the file

of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and the

Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad-II, whereunder, the

claim of respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein for grant of compensation for

death of one Mr. P. Venkatesh (hereinafter referred to as

'deceased'), in an accident was partly allowed awarding

compensation of Rs.4,37,940/-. Aggrieved by the same, the

present appeal is filed at the instance of insurance company i.e.,

respondent No.2 before the Commissioner.

2. The main contention of the appellant-insurance company is

that the Commissioner has not considered the wages which are

being paid by respondent No.4 herein to the workman, who died

during the course of his employment. According to the average

wages paid by respondent No.4, they only paid Rs.1,666.66/-

instead of considering the same, the Commissioner has accepted

the oral evidence of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and records produced by

ML,J CMA_198_2009

respondent No.4 for fixing monthly wages of Rs.4,000/- which is

not in accordance with the evidence on record.

3. Initially, there was no representation from the learned

counsel for appellant on record. Originally, this appeal was filed by

Mr. R. Briz Mohan Singh, Advocate and since he died, there was no

further appointment by the appellant. In the said circumstances,

this Court appointed Mr. A. Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate, who is

one of the standing counsel for the appellant-insurance company to

represent the appellant in the present matter. Accordingly, he

appeared and made his submissions on behalf of the appellant

insurance company.

4. None appeared and there is no representation for

respondents.

5. As seen from the scope of interference in the appeal, as

contained under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act,

1923, the interference is warranted only in the case where

substantial question of law is involved in appeal. This means

unless it is shown that there are perverse findings or the findings

are based on no evidence or if the evidence is there, but ignored,

but such evidence is relevant evidence. In the present case, as

ML,J CMA_198_2009

seen from the impugned order, the appellant has not contested the

claim before the Commissioner. The Commissioner took the oral

evidence of legal representatives of the deceased workman i.e.,

respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein and also the records produced by

respondent No.4 herein under Exs.X-1 and X-2 into consideration.

Having considered such evidence found that wages paid were

Rs.4,000/- per month. Further, there is no evidence on record to

say that the average monthly wages paid by respondent No.4 comes

to Rs.1,666.66/-. In the said circumstances, this Court does not

find any substantial question of law and the present appeal is

devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed

confirming the award dated 29.10.2004 in W.C.No.102 of 2004 on

the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and the

Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad-II. There shall be

no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall

stand closed.

______________ M.LAXMAN, J Date: 23.01.2023 TU/GVR