Telangana High Court

Kalewar Padma, Nizamabad And 3 Othrs vs M. Vasudev, Nizamabad And Ano on 22 November, 2023

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

       CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.428 OF 2013

JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the order dated 08.10.2012 in W.C. No.8 of

2009 F passed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation

and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad (for short 'the

Commissioner'), the applicants have filed the present appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be

referred as per their array before the Commissioner.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants have filed

an application claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the

death of Kalewar Raj Ganga Ram in the accident that occurred on

27.11.2002. It is stated that the deceased was working under the

opposite party No.1 as labourer on his trailer bearing No. AP 25 D

9653 towed to the tractor bearing No. AP 25 F 7244 and he was

being paid Rs.5,000/- per month as salary and bata of Rs.50/- per

day and he was aged 31 years. While so, on 27.11.2002 at 9-30

a.m. the deceased workman was traveling as labour of the opposite

party No.1 in trailer bearing No. AP 25 D 9653 towed to the tractor

bearing No. AP 25 F 7244 under the instructions of the opposite

party No.1 from Kona Samudram to Karepally shivar for bringing

cow dung. When it reached the limits of Mendora shivar, the 2 MGP,J

driver of tractor drove it in a rash and negligent manner and could

not control it, as a result of which, the tractor and trailer turned

turtle. Due to which, the deceased workman and others sustained

injuries and the deceased died while undergoing treatment. The

Police, Bheemgal P.S. registered a case in crime No.128 of 2002

under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC. As the accident occurred

during and in the course of employment of the deceased workman

under opposite party No.1 owner of the trailer bearing No. AP 25 D

9653 and it was insured with the opposite party No.2, opposite

party Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay

compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the applicants.

4. Opposite party No.1 filed counter admitting the employment

of the deceased, manner of accident and stated that he used to pay

Rs.4,500/- per month as salary without any bata to the deceased

and contended that the vehicle was insured with opposite party

No.2 and therefore, prayed to dismiss the application against him.

5. Opposite Party No.2/Insurance Company filed counter

denying the averments of the application such as age, avocation

and employment of the deceased workman. It is contended that

the trailer is not self propelled mechanical vehicle and it was

tagged to the tractor bearing No. AP 25 F 7244 and the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor 3 MGP,J

bearing No. AP 25 F 7244 by its driver, hence, the owner and

insurer of the said tractor are necessary parties to this application

in the absence of which this application is liable to be dismissed.

Therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim against respondent No.2.

6. On behalf of the applicants, applicant No.1 was examined as

PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. On behalf of opposite party

No.2, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked.

7. The Commissioner after considering the evidence on record,

both oral and documentary has awarded compensation of

Rs.2,11,820/-, together with stamp fee of Rs.424/- and the

advocate fee of Rs.500/-, totaling to Rs.2,12,744/- against the

opposite party Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Dissatisfied with

the same, the applicants have preferred the present appeal.

8. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned

Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company. Perused the

material available on record.

9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the

applicants is that though the applicants pleaded that the deceased

was getting salary of Rs.5,000/- per month apart from bata of

Rs.50/- per day and he was aged 31years and the opposite party

No.1 has stated that the deceased was getting salary of Rs.4,500/-

4 MGP,J

per month and the deceased was aged more than 40 years, the

learned Commissioner has not accepted the income of the

deceased neither as stated by the applicants nor as stated by the

opposite party No.1 and has applied minimum wages and taken

the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,057/- per month and

awarded meager compensation. Further the learned Commissioner

has awarded rate of interest from the date of default at 12% per

annum but not from the date of accident. Therefore, prayed to

allow the appeal.

10. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for

respondent No.2 submitted that after considering all the aspects,

the learned Commissioner has rightly awarded the reasonable

compensation and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

11. In view of the rival contentions, this Court has perused the

material available on record. The applicant No.1 who is the wife of

the deceased was examined as AW.1, has reiterated the averments

of the application and stated that her husband worked as labourer

under opposite party No.1 and on the date of accident i.e.

27.11.2002 at 9-30 a.m. the deceased was traveling as labour

under opposite party No.1 in the trailer bearing No. AP 25 D 9653

and tractor bearing No.AP 25 F 7244 under the instructions of

opposite party No.1 from Kona Samudram to Karepally shivar to 5 MGP,J

bring cow dung and when it reached the limits of Mendora shivar,

the driver of the tractor drove it in rash and negligent manner and

could not control the vehicle, as a result, the tractor and trailer

turned turtle and the deceased workman sustained injuries and

died during the course of treatment. According to AW.1, her

deceased husband was aged 31 years and receiving salary of

Rs.5,000/- per month apart from bata of Rs.50/-, whereas the

opposite party no.1 in his counter has stated that the deceased

was paid Rs.4,500/- per month towards his salary without any

bata. As there is contradiction in the statements given by the wife

of the deceased as well as opposite party No.1 and that there is no

evidence produced by the applicants to prove the income of the

deceased, the learned Commissioner has rightly taken the income

of the deceased at Rs.2,057/- per month according to the

minimum wages as per the G.O.Ms.No.30 of Labour, Employment,

Training and Factories dated 27.7.2000 issued by the erstwhile

Government of Andhra Pradesh. Further as per the inquest report

and postmortem examination report, the deceased was aged 31

years. Therefore, considering the age of the deceased at 31 years,

applied relevant factor of '205.95', and awarded compensation of

Rs.2,11,820/-. Further the learned Commissioner also awarded

an amount of Rs.424/- towards stamp fee and Rs.500/- towards

Advocate fee. Thus in all, the learned Commissioner has awarded 6 MGP,J

Rs.2,12,744/- to the applicants, which is just and reasonable.

Therefore, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the

findings of the learned Commissioner in awarding the just and

reasonable compensation.

12. Insofar as rate of interest is concerned, as per the decision

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Meenaraj v. P. Adigurusamy 1,

held as under:

"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."

13. In view of the principle laid down in the above said citation,

it is evident that the applicant is entitled for interest at 12% per

1 Civil Appeal No 209 of 2022, decided on 6 January 2022 7 MGP,J

annum on the compensation amount from the date of accident till

date of deposit. Hence, this Court is inclined to award interest at

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

accident till the date of deposit.

14. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed

by modifying the impugned order passed by the Commissioner to

the extent of granting interest rate at 12% per annum from the

date of accident till the date of deposit. There shall be no order as

to costs.