Telangana High Court

Thota Buchi Rajam And Anr vs The Northern Power Distribution ... on 8 February, 2024

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
      CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.1068 of 2011
                     and 19 of 2024

COMMON JUDGMENT:

1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against order

dated 11.03.2011 in W.C.No.18 of 2009 (F) on the file of the

Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant

Commissioner of Labour at Nizamabad (hereinafter referred to as

'Commissioner'). The said claim petition was filed by the

petitioners therein seeking compensation for death of one Thota

Bheemaiah (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') and the same

was partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,48,000/-.

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners before the

Commissioner filed C.M.A.No.1068 of 2011 seeking enhancement

of compensation and the respondents before the Commissioner

filed C.M.A.No.19 of 2024 seeking to set aside the impugned order

and dismiss the claim petition. Since both the appeals are arising

out of same order, they are being dealt with by way of this

common judgment.

2. The petitioners before the Commissioner are appellants in

C.M.A.No.1068 of 2011 and respondents in C.M.A.No.19 of 2024.

The respondents before the Commissioner are appellants in

MGP,J CMA_1068_2011 & CMA_19_2024

C.M.A.No.19 of 2024 and respondents in C.M.A.No.1068 of 2011.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to

as they were arrayed before the Commissioner.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are father and

mother of the deceased respectively. The deceased was working as

helper under the respondents and on 18.07.2003 at about 02:15

PM, the deceased was attending repairs at electricity pole in the

field of one Medipalli Bakkaiah. At that time, he suddenly came

into contact with main line on the upper level and due to the

current shock he fell down from the current pole and died on the

spot. In this regard, a case was registered in First Information

Report No.41 of 2003 on the file of Kathalapur Police Station of

Karimnagar District under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure

Code (Cr.P.C.).

4. It is further the case of the petitioners that they were

completely dependent on the earnings of the deceased. The

deceased was 20 years old and was working as helper under

respondents and that he was being paid an amount of Rs.5,000/-

per month towards wages. The deceased died during the course

MGP,J CMA_1068_2011 & CMA_19_2024

and out of his employment under the respondents. Hence, the

petitioners filed the present claim petition seeking compensation

of Rs.5,00,000/- payable by the respondents being the employers

of the deceased.

5. Respondents filed their counter denying the averments of the

claim petition. Respondents contended that the deceased was

never employed under them as helper and the present claim

petition is filed with malafide intention to get compensation from

the respondents. It is also contended that the deceased was not

employed under respondents, as such, the petitioners have not

filed any proof of employment such as details of employment, date

of his appointment, identity card etc., It is also contended that

the respondents were unaware of the incident and the deceased

unauthorizedly attended the repair work on electrical pole. Hence,

they are not liable to pay any compensation for his death. It is

also stated that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to entertain

the claim petition because the alleged incident took place at

Thakkalapalli within the limits of Kathalapur Police Station of

Karimnagar District and the present claim petition is filed before

MGP,J CMA_1068_2011 & CMA_19_2024

the Commissioner of Nizamabad District. Therefore, prayed to

dismiss the claim petition.

6. In support of their case, the petitioners got examined P.Ws.1

and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. In favour of respondents,

R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B-1 was got marked.

7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues

were framed by the Commissioner:

"1.Whether the deceased was a workman within the meaning of the Act and whether he died accident arising out of and in the course of employment under opposite parties?

2. If so, what was the monthly wages drawn by the deceased workman?

3. What was the age of the workman at the time of his death?

4. Whether the applicants are entitled to compensation? If so, to what extent?"

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

Commissioner held that the petitioners have successfully proved

their case. Hence, the claim petition was partly allowed holding

that respondents were liable to pay compensation and granted an

amount of Rs.4,48,000/- towards compensation payable to the

petitioners.

MGP,J CMA_1068_2011 & CMA_19_2024

9. Heard both sides.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners i.e., appellants in

C.M.A.No.1068 of 2011 contended that the Commissioner has

erred in considering the monthly salary of the deceased at

Rs.4,000/- per month instead of Rs.5,000/- per month. It is

further contended that the Commissioner has failed to grant

interest at 12% per annum on the compensation amount from the

date of the accident till the date of deposit. Hence, prayed to allow

C.M.A.No.1068 of 2011 and enhance compensation granted by the

Commissioner and also grant interest as prayed for.

11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents i.e.,

appellants in C.M.A.No.19 of 2024 contended that the

Commissioner has no jurisdiction in the present claim petition, as

the accident took place in Karimnagar District and the

Commissioner had jurisdiction only over Nizamabad District. It is

also contended that though, the petitioners have not proved that

the deceased was workman under the Workmen's Compensation

Act, 1923 and that the deceased was employed under

respondents, the Commissioner erred in granting compensation to

MGP,J CMA_1068_2011 & CMA_19_2024

the petitioners. It is also contended that the Commissioner

without any proper evidence has taken the wages of the deceased

as Rs.4,000/- per month and has granted compensation. Hence,

prayed to allow the C.M.A.No.19 of 2024 and set aside the

impugned order.

12. Now the point for determination is as follows:

"1. Whether the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation and interest on the same as prayed for?

2. Whether the Commissioner is justified in granting compensation based on the evidence on record?"

Point Nos.1 and 2:

13. This Court has perused the entire evidence and material

placed on record. Petitioner No.1 was examined as P.W.1 and he

reiterated the contents of the claim petition in his evidence.

Though, he was cross-examined at length, nothing contrary was

elicited. The petitioners got examined P.W.2, who was

independent eyewitness to the incident. P.W.2 supported the case

of the petitioners with regard to age, occupation, salary,

occurrence of the incident and death of the deceased. He deposed

that on 18.07.2003, he was present along with ten others at the

place of incident in the field of one Medipalli Bakkaiah, where the

MGP,J CMA_1068_2011 & CMA_19_2024

deceased was repairing the electric pole. At about, 02:15 PM, the

deceased while attending repairs of electricity pole suddenly came

into contact with main line on the upper level and due to the

current shock, he fell down from the current pole and died on the

spot. He also stated that Police, Kathalapur of Karimnagar

District recorded his statement. In the cross-examination, P.W.2

denied the suggestion that the deceased never worked under

respondents and used to attend different electrical works in the

village.

14. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents, one Sri G.

Harikrishna, ADE/Operation/Korutla/APNPDCL was examined as

R.W.1. He reiterated the contents of the counter filed by the

respondents. He deposed that any person of their department

intended to carry out repairing works to the electric pole will take

the line clearance to avoid passage of electricity through the said

lines and the departmental staff only should attend such work. A

layman like deceased was not supposed to attend such work

because he does not know the repairing works of the electric pole.

He denied the employment of the deceased as helper and also the

employee and employer relationship between the deceased and the

MGP,J CMA_1068_2011 & CMA_19_2024

respondents. He also denied that the deceased died during the

course and out of his employment as helper under respondents.

He also deposed that the alleged incident took place at

Thakallapalli village within the limits of Police Station Kathalapur

of Karimnagar District and the present claim petition is filed

before the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act,

1923 of Nizamabad District, who does not have jurisdiction.

Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

15. It is pertinent to state that Ex.A-1 copy of FIR clearly shows

that the deceased was attending repair works on the electric pole

and due to sudden passage of current he died due to electrocution

on the spot. Ex.A-2 copy of postmortem examination report and

Ex.A-3 copy of inquest report also shows that the deceased died

due to electrocution. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are

father of the deceased and eyewitness to the incident also clearly

support the occurrence of the incident as alleged by the

petitioners. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to

occurrence of the incident and death of the deceased.

MGP,J CMA_1068_2011 & CMA_19_2024

16. The main dispute is with regard to employee and employer

relationship between the deceased and the respondents. In order

to prove the same, the petitioners apart from examining P.Ws.1

and 2 got marked Ex.A-4, which is certificate issued by Sarpanch

with regard to the employment of the deceased as helper under

respondents. The petitioners have discharged their initial burden

with regard to the employment of the deceased. The respondents

got examined R.W.1, who in his evidence simply says that the

deceased was not employed under respondents and in order to

substantiate the said claim no proper evidence was adduced.

Though, Ex.B-1 copies of the extract register of fixed charges is

marked through R.W.1, the said document does not prove that the

deceased was not employed under respondents. The respondents

in order to rebut the initial burden discharged by the petitioners

ought to have adduced cogent and convincing evidence, but except

the self-serving statement of R.W.1 and Ex.B-1, nothing has been

adduced by the respondents to disprove the case set up by the

petitioners. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the

considered opinion that after considering all these aspects the

Commissioner has rightly held that the deceased was employed as

MGP,J CMA_1068_2011 & CMA_19_2024

helper under respondents, he died during the course and out of

his employment due to electrocution and that he is workman

under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. Hence, the

contention of the learned counsel for the respondents/appellants

in C.M.A.No.19 of 2024 that there was no employee and employer

relationship between the deceased and respondents is

unsustainable.

17. Learned counsel for the respondents i.e., appellants in

C.M.A.No.19 of 2024 contended that the Commissioner has no

jurisdiction in the present claim petition, as the accident took

place in Karimnagar District and the Commissioner had

jurisdiction only over Nizamabad District. On the contrary, the

learned counsel for the petitioners i.e., appellants in

C.M.A.No.1068 of 2011 contended that the petitioners after the

death of the deceased were residing in Armoor of Nizamabad

District, as such they have filed the present claim petitioner before

the Commissioner of Nizmabad District. In support of his case, he

relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Morgina

Begum v. Md. Hanuman Plantation Limited 1, wherein it was

(2007) 11 SCC 616

MGP,J CMA_1068_2011 & CMA_19_2024

held that petition for compensation could be filed at location

where the claimant parents had moved after death of their son.

18. It is pertinent to state that a perusal of the cause title of the

claim petition as well as the impugned order, the residence of the

petitioners is shown as Armoor, Nizamabad District.

Furthermore, in his evidence, P.W.1 clearly stated that he along

with petitioner No.2 was residing in Armoor, Nizamabad District.

In the said circumstances, in view of the decision of the Apex

Court cited supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

petitioners were residing in Nizamabad District after death of the

deceased, as such they filed the claim petition before the

Commissioner of Nizamabad District. Therefore, the

Commissioner was having jurisdiction to entertain the claim

petition, though the accident occurred in Karimnagar District.

This aspect was rightly dealt with by the Commissioner and

interference of this Court is unwarranted.

19. It is also pertinent to state that a perusal of the evidence

placed on record by the petitioners shows that except mere

contention no proper evidence is placed to show that the deceased

MGP,J CMA_1068_2011 & CMA_19_2024

was earning an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month towards wages.

In the said circumstances, the Commissioner has considered the

wages of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month. This Court is of

the considered opinion that the said amount is just and

reasonable and interference of this Court is unwarranted.

20. Furthermore, considering the age of the deceased the

Commissioner has granted Rs.4,48,000/- towards compensation,

which is just and reasonable and interference of this Court is

unwarranted. Hence, the C.M.A.No.19 of 2024 filed by the

respondents before the Commissioner is devoid of merits and the

same is liable to be dismissed.

21. Insofar as interest is concerned, the Commissioner has not

granted any interest on the compensation amount. In respect of

rate of interest, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of P. Meenaraj

v. P. Adigurusamy 2, 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

2 Civil Appeal No 209 of 2022, dated 06.01.2022

MGP,J CMA_1068_2011 & CMA_19_2024

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."

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

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

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.

23. In the result, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.19 of 2024 is

dismissed and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1068 of 2011 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 incident till the date of deposit. In all

other aspects, the order of the Commissioner stands confirmed.