Telangana High Court

Sri Rajarajeshwari Saw Mill vs Dola Mallaiah on 15 November, 2023

Bench: M.G.Priyadarsini

        THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

     CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.8 of 2012 and 44 of 2014

COMMON JUDGMENT:

1.     These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against order

dated 07.12.2011 in W.C./File/A/473/2011 (W.C./Mise/A/1919/

2010) on the file of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation

Act, 1923 and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Sangareddy, Medak

District (hereinafter referred to as 'Commissioner'), whereunder the

claim petition filed by the applicant therein seeking compensation for

injuries sustained by him in an accident occurred on 31.05.2010 was

partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.2,43,145/-. Aggrieved by

the said order, the opposite party before the Commissioner filed

C.M.A.No.8 of 2012 and the applicant before the Commissioner filed

C.M.A.No.44 of 2014. Since both the appeals are arising out of same

order, they are being dealt with by way of this common judgment.


2.     The   applicant   before   the   Commissioner   is   appellant    in

C.M.A.No.44 of 2014 and respondent in C.M.A.No.8 of 2012.               The

opposite party before the Commissioner is appellant in C.M.A.No.8 of

2012 and respondent in C.M.A.No.44 of 2014. For the sake of

convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were

arrayed before the Commissioner.

MGP,J CMA_8_2012 & CMA_44_2014

3. It is the case of the applicant that he was working as a helper in

opposite party i.e., Sri Raja Rajeswari Saw Mill for a monthly salary of

Rs.5,000/-. While so, on 31.05.2010, an accident occurred and the

applicant lost his thumb, index, middle fingers and half portion of his

forearm of left hand. He was admitted in Government Hospital,

Siddipet and later, he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad,

on doctor's advice for treatment. In this regard, a case was registered

vide First Information Report (FIR) No.119/2010 on the file of Police

Station Dubbak and after conducting enquiry, a charge sheet was filed

under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The applicant was

aged about 40 years at the time of accident. The accident was during

the course and out of the employment of applicant with opposite

party. Hence, he filed the present claim petition seeking compensation

of Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. The opposite party represented by its proprietor filed its counter

denying that the applicant was employed under opposite party and

also denied that the accident was during the course and out of his

employment. It is the case of opposite party that on 31.05.2010 at

04:00 PM, when all the employees of sawmill went for lunch, the

MGP,J CMA_8_2012 & CMA_44_2014

applicant entered the premises of sawmill without permission. He

started the machine and due to his negligence the alleged accident

took place. However, on humanitarian grounds, the opposite party

paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- cash towards compensation and also

paid Rs.80,000/- towards medical expenses of the applicant. Further,

in order to extract more money and to harass the opposite party, the

applicant filed the present claim petition. Hence, prayed to dismiss

the same.

5. In support of his case, the applicant got examined A.W.1 and got

marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. Opposite party got examined R.Ws.1 and 2

and got marked Ex.B-1, in support of their case.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issue was

framed by the Commissioner:

"Whether the applicant's injuries are related to the admittedly employment injuries received by him on 31.05.2010?"

7. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the

Commissioner held that the applicant successfully proved his case.

Hence, the claim petition was partly allowed holding that the opposite

MGP,J CMA_8_2012 & CMA_44_2014

party was liable to pay compensation and granted an amount of

Rs.2,43,145/- towards compensation payable to the applicant.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite party i.e., appellant in

C.M.A.No.8 of 2012 contended that the there is no employee and

employer relationship between the applicant and the opposite party. It

is his case that R.W.2, who was employed under the opposite party

was examined before the Commissioner and he clearly stated that the

applicant was not employed under the opposite party. Hence, the

Commissioner has wrongly come to the conclusion that there was

employee and employer relationship between them.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant i.e., appellant in C.M.A.No.44

of 2014 contended that the employee and employer relationship of the

applicant and the opposite party was clearly established by the

applicant before the Commissioner and compensation was accordingly

granted. However, the Commissioner while determining the

compensation has erred in not assessing the loss of earning disability

and has wrongly taken the physical disability while determining the

compensation. Further, the Commissioner also erred in granting

MGP,J CMA_8_2012 & CMA_44_2014

compensation without any interest. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal

filed by the applicant and dismiss the appeal filed by the opposite

party.

11. Now the points for determination are as follows:

"1. Whether the findings of the Commissioner with regard to employee and employer relationship between the applicant and opposite party suffer from any illegality?

2. Whether the findings of the Commissioner with regard to determination of the compensation and non-payment of interest suffer from any illegality?"

Point Nos.1 and 2:

12. This Court has perused the entire evidence and material placed

on record, admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to occurrence of

accident of the applicant in the premises of the opposite party. The

same is supported by the medical certificate and police records

produced by the applicant. The First Information Report No.119 of

2010 dated 19.07.2010 and the final charge sheet filed in the said

case by the police after thorough investigation supports the case of the

applicant with regard to employee and employer relationship between

the applicant and the opposite party. In the said circumstances, the

opposite party and R.W.2 cannot contend that there is no employee

and employer relationship between the applicant and the opposite

MGP,J CMA_8_2012 & CMA_44_2014

party. This clearly shows that the opposite party in order to escape

his liability as employer has got examined R.W.2. Therefore, this

Court is of the considered opinion that the Commissioner has rightly

held that there is employee and employer relationship between the

applicant and the opposite party and the Commissioner has rightly

held the same. Accordingly, the contention of the opposite party with

regard to employee and employer relationship is rejected.

13. Coming to the aspect of calculation of the compensation, the

Commissioner has determined the age of the applicant as 40 years.

Further, in the absence of any evidence, though the applicant claimed

to have been earning an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month, the

Commissioner assessed the minimum wages of the deceased at

Rs.4,858/- per month. The said aspects are not disputed and this

Court also feels that there is no requirement of any interference.

However, the medical certificate filed by the applicant, which is not

disputed by the opposite party shows that the disability of the

applicant was determined at 45%. The Commissioner ought to have

determined loss of earning capacity of the deceased from such

physical disability. But, the Commissioner instead of doing so, has

calculated and determined the compensation at Rs.2,41,585/-

MGP,J CMA_8_2012 & CMA_44_2014

(Rs.4,858/- X 60/100 X 45/100 X 184.17). Therefore, this Court is

inclined to determine the loss of earning capacity of the applicant

based on the occupation of the applicant at 50% due to the injuries

sustained by him in the accident and also based on the physical

disability of 45%, which is determined in the medical certificate filed

by him. After determining the loss of earning capacity at 50%, the

calculation of the compensation is as follows:

Rs.4,858/- X 60/100 X 50/100 X 184.17 = Rs.2,68,409/-.

Thus, the compensation is determined at Rs.2,68,409/-.

14. Further, the Commissioner has granted an amount of

Rs.1,060/- towards Court fee and Rs.500/- towards advocate fees.

The same are hereby confirmed. After enhancement, the total amount

of compensation comes to Rs.2,69,969/-.

15. 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 decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of P.Meenaraj v. P. Adiguruswamy,

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

MGP,J CMA_8_2012 & CMA_44_2014

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."

16. A perusal of the principle laid down in the above said decision, it

is evident that the applicant is entitled for interest @ 12% per annum

on the compensation amount from the date of accident till the date of

deposit.

17. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view

that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner has to be

modified. The compensation is enhanced from Rs.2,69,969/- with

interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident till the date of

deposit as discussed above.

18. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.8 of 2012 is

dismissed and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.44 of 2014 is allowed

and the order dated 07.12.2011 in W.C./File/A/473/2011