Telangana High Court

P.Ramesh vs Narri Lingam And Anr on 8 February, 2024

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

        CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.44 of 2013


JUDGMENT:

1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed

against order dated 23.10.2012 on the file of the Commissioner for

Employees' Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-

IV, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner'). The

said claim application was filed by the applicant therein seeking

compensation for injuries sustained by him in an accident that

occurred on 10.01.2012 and the same was partly allowed by the

Commissioner granting compensation of Rs.5,82,252/-.

Dissatisfied with the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal

is filed at the instance of the applicant before the Commissioner

seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The appellant herein is applicant and respondents herein are

opposite parties before the Commissioner. 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 was

working as driver on lorry bearing No.AP 29 TB 0929 under the

MGP,J CMA_44_2013

employment of opposite party No.1. On 10.01.2012, the applicant

was on duty on the said lorry and proceeding from Kanchikacherla

to Hyderabad. When the lorry reached near Chevitikallu village,

at about 15:00 hours, another lorry bearing No.AP 24 TA 6668,

which was coming in opposite direction being driven in rash and

negligent manner by its driver dashed the lorry of the applicant.

Due to which accident occurred and the applicant sustained

fracture of right tibia and fracture of left ankle and right ankle.

Immediately, the applicant was shifted to Help Hospital,

Vijayawada, through 108 Ambulance. Subsequently, he was

shifted to Tilak Nagar hospital for better treatment. With regard to

the accident, the Police Governorpet of Vijayawada city registered

a case in Crime No.24 of 2012 under Section 337 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860.

4. It is further the case of the applicant that the said accident

occurred during the course and out of his employment as driver

under opposite party No.1. According to the applicant, he was

aged about 32 years as on the date of the accident and he was

being paid an amount of Rs.8,500/- per month towards wages by

opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 being the owner and

MGP,J CMA_44_2013

opposite party No.2 being insurer of the lorry involved in the

accident are liable to pay compensation. Hence, the present claim

application is filed by the applicant seeking compensation of

Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him.

5. Opposite party No.1 remained ex parte. Opposite party No.2

filed its counter denying the averments of the claim application

such as age, wages, employment of the applicant under opposite

party No.1, occurrence of the accident and also injuries sustained

by the applicant. It is also denied that the applicant was having

valid driving license as on the date of the accident. Opposite party

No.2 prayed to dismiss the claim application as the compensation

claimed by the applicant is excess and exorbitant.

6. In support of his case, the applicant got examined himself as

A.W.1 and also examined A.W.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-14.

No oral evidence was adduced by opposite party No.2, but Exs.B-1

to B-3 were got marked.

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

Commissioner framed the following issues:

MGP,J CMA_44_2013

"1. Whether the applicant sustained injuries in an accident that arose out of and in the course of employment?

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

3. Who are liable to pay compensation to the applicant?

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

8. After considering the evidence and documents filed by both

sides, the Commissioner awarded an amount of Rs.5,82,252/-

towards compensation to the applicant. Dissatisfied with the

same, the present appeal is filed seeking enhancement of

compensation by the applicant.

9. Heard, the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned

standing counsel for respondent No.2.

10. The main contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant/applicant is that though the applicant has proved his

case by adducing cogent and convincing evidence and also by

relying upon the documents, the Commissioner has awarded

meager amount towards compensation. Hence, prayed to allow

the appeal and enhance the compensation granted by the

Commissioner.

MGP,J CMA_44_2013

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

party No.2 i.e., the insurance company contended that the

Commissioner after considering all the aspects has awarded

reasonable compensation and interference of this Court is not

necessary.

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

"Whether the applicant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for?"

Point:-

13. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents

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

as A.W.1 and he reiterated the contents of the claim application.

In order to prove the injuries sustained by him, he got examined

A.W.2, who is Orthopedic Surgeon. A.W.2 deposed that he

examined the applicant and found that he sustained closed

fracture of right tibia and initially, he was treated in Help Hospital,

Vijayawada and later, he was treated in Tilaknagar Hospital,

Hyderabad. He deposed that POP was applied and the applicant

was advised to undergo operation, but due to financial problems,

MGP,J CMA_44_2013

he could not undergo operation. He also deposed that there was

stiffness in right leg due to which the applicant cannot sit, squat

and cannot walk without support. Therefore, after going through

X-rays along with reports, he issued disability certificate with 45%

disability being partial and permanent. He also deposed that the

fracture was non-union with shortening of right leg, which will

cause limping. The applicant cannot drive any vehicle due to the

said injuries, which are grievous in nature. A.W.2 further

assessed the loss of earning capacity at 100%. In the cross-

examination, he has stated that as per the previous medical

record, the applicant only sustained fracture of right tibia and

denied that the applicant did not sustain 45% disability and 100%

loss of earning capacity. He also denied that Ex.A-7 disability

certificate was false and fabricated document created for the

purpose of this case.

14. Apart from the oral evidence of A.Ws.1 and 2, the applicant

also relied upon Ex.A-1 copy of First Information Report, Ex.A-2

copy of charge sheet and Ex.A-3 copy of intimation to the police by

Help Hospital. The said documents would show that a case was

registered in Crime No.24 of 2012 under Section 337 of the Indian

MGP,J CMA_44_2013

Penal Code, 1860, by Police Governorpet, Vijaywada City and

investigation was taken up. After thorough investigation charge

sheet under Ex.A-2 was laid. Ex.A-4 copy of wound certificate

issued by Help Hospital, Ex.A-5 original discharge summary of the

Help Hospital, Ex.A-6 original discharge summary of Tilaknagar

Hospital and Ex.A-7 disability certificate, would reveal the injuries

sustained by the applicant and treatment underwent by him in

the hospitals. Ex.A-8 is copy of driving license, which shows that

the applicant was having valid and effective driving license as on

the date of the accident. Ex.A-9 copy of registration certificate,

Ex.A-10 copy of permit, Ex.A-11 copy of fitness, Ex.A-12 copy of

way bill and Ex.A-14/B-1 copy of insurance policy clearly disclose

that opposite party No.1 was owner of the vehicle and as on the

date of the accident, the vehicle was having valid and effective

insurance policy issued by opposite party No.2.

15. On behalf of opposite party No.2, its Assistant Legal Manager

was examined as R.W.1, who deposed about the delay in filing

First Information Report. In the cross-examination, he admitted

that policy was in force as on the date of the accident and the

same covers the risk of driver. He also accepted that the FIR was

MGP,J CMA_44_2013

lodged within time and there was no delay on part of the applicant

in filing the FIR.

16. It is pertinent to state that admittedly there is no dispute

with regard to occurrence of the accident and injuries sustained

by the applicant. However, the main dispute that the learned

counsel for the applicant/appellant has put forth is that the

Commissioner has taken meager amount towards income of the

applicant and granted compensation on lower side. Admittedly,

the applicant claimed that he was being paid an amount of

Rs.8,500/- per month. However, the Commissioner considering

the G.O.Ms.No.83, L.E.T & F (Lab-II) Department dated

04.12.2006, and V.D.A. payable as notified by the Commissioner

of Labour, A.P., Hyderabad, fixed the wages at Rs.6,130.25/- paise

per month. However, the Central Government of India by

notification published in Gazette of India No.1047, dated

31.05.2010 of Ministry of Labour and Employment Notification in

S.O.1258 (E) the monthly wages are limited to Rs.8,000/- per

month with effect from 31.05.2010. The date of accident in the

present case is 10.01.2012. Though, the applicant claimed that

an amount of Rs.8,500/- was paid to him per month towards

MGP,J CMA_44_2013

wages, no documentary proof is filed by him to prove the same.

Hence, the Commissioner considered the minimum wages i.e.,

Rs.6,130.25/- while granting compensation. In the said

circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that an amount of

Rs.7,500/- per month can be taken into consideration for

determining the compensation.

17. It is also pertinent to state that A.W.2 determined the

disability of the applicant at 45% and loss of earning capacity at

100%. However, the Commissioner considering the nature of

injuries sustained by the applicant has determined the loss of

earning capacity at 75%. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion

that though, the applicant cannot perform his duties as driver due

to the injuries sustained by him, he can eke his livelihood by

doing other works. Hence, the Commissioner has rightly

determined the loss of earning capacity of the applicant at 75%

and interference of this Court into the said aspect is unwarranted.

Furthermore, the Commissioner after rightly considering the

evidence on record has determined the age of the applicant at 33

years and interference of this Court is not necessary.

MGP,J CMA_44_2013

18. As per formula the calculation of amount of compensation is

as follows:

Rs.7,500/- X 60/100 X 75/100 X 201.66 = Rs.6,80,602/-

19. The Commissioner has granted an amount of Rs.1,112/-

towards stamp fee and Rs.500/- towards advocate fee. Hence, the

total amount of compensation, which the applicant is entitled

comes to Rs.6,82,214/-.

20. Insofar 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

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

MGP,J CMA_44_2013

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."

21. In view 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

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.

22. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed

by enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,82,252/- to

Rs.6,82,214/- payable along with interest at 12% per annum on

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

deposit. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the

enhanced amount of compensation along with accrued interest