Telangana High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Sandhya Penchala on 19 February, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.431 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
Heard Ms. I.Maamu Vani, learned counsel the appellant-
insurance company and learned counsel Sri S.Sudarshan Reddy
for the respondent Nos.1 to 5/applicants.
2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated
08.06.2023 passed in E.C.No.283 of 2017 by the Commissioner
for Employees' Compensation and Assistant Commissioner for
Labour-IV, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Commissioner').
3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are
that deceased--Penchala Srikanth was working as cleaner on
lorry bearing registration No.AP-01-X-7677 and was earning
monthly salary of Rs.12,000/-. On 31.08.2017, while the
deceased was on duty as a clear on the above lorry and while
transporting goods at Yesunagar, Mulugu, in order to protect
goods from rain, the deceased was covering the goods with
plastic cover, at that time, accidentally, he came in contact with
live electric wire and died on the spot due to electrocution. The
Police, P.S. Mulugu, registered a case in Crime No.225/2017
under Section 174 of Cr.P.C.
LNA,J
4. The deceased was aged 29 years, hale and health at the
time of accident and used to contribute his earnings to the
maintenance and welfare of his family. The applicants filed
application under the provisions of the Employees'
Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, 'the Act') claiming
compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of death of
deceased in an accident against the opposite party nos.1 and 2,
who are the owner and insurer of the offending lorry.
5. The opposite party no.1/respondent no.6 herein, filed
counter denying all the allegations, except those, which are
specially admitted in the counter. He admitted that he was the
owner of the lorry, but denied the employment of the deceased
as cleaner on the said lorry and denied the employer and
employee relationship between O.P.1 and the deceased. It is
contended that he insured the lorry with O.P.2 and the
insurance policy was in force and valid by the date of accident;
that if the Commissioner comes to a conclusion to award any
compensation to the claimants, the same has to be awarded
against O.P.2 and finally requested to dismiss the claim against
him.
6. The opposite no.2-insurance company/appellant herein,
filed counter denying all the material allegations mentioned in
LNA,J
the application and further contended that there is no employer
and employee relationship between the O.P.1 and the deceased.
It is contended that amount of compensation claimed by the
applicants with interest and costs are high, excessive,
exorbitant and not in accordance with law and finally, prayed to
dismiss the claim against the insurance company.
7. Basing on the above pleadings, the Commissioner had
framed the following issues:
i) Whether the deceased was an employee within the
meaning of the Act, worked as cleaner on the lorry
bearing No.AP-01-X-7677 under the employment of
O.P.1 and met with an accident on 31.08.2017 during
the course and out of his employment resulting in his
death ?
ii) If yes, who are liable to pay compensation to the
dependants of the deceased?
iii) What is the quantum of compensation entitled by the
dependants of the deceased?
8. In order to substantiate the case, the 1st applicant herself
was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked on their
behalf. On behalf of the opposite parties, none were examined,
however, copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1 on
behalf of O.P.2.
LNA,J
9. The Commissioner, on due consideration of the evidence
adduced and documents placed on record, awarded
compensation of Rs.7,14,053/- along with interest at the rate of
12% per annum from the date of application till the date of
realization.
10. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for
appellant submitted that there was no employer and employee
relationship between the deceased and the respondent no.6
herein; that the Commissioner ought to have seen that there
was no evidence that deceased had suffered electrocution
during the course of his employment; that in the absence of
employer and employee relationship being proved, the claim
under Employees' Compensation was not maintainable and the
Commissioner did not have jurisdiction to entertain the same
and therefore, the appellant-insurance company could not be
fastened with liability.
11. Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5 submitted that
the Commissioner, on due consideration of evidence and
material placed on record, had rightly awarded the
compensation amount, and the appellant failed to make out any
LNA,J
ground to interfere with the compensation awarded by the
Commissioner.
Consideration:
12. From the material placed before the Commissioner, the it
clearly shows that in fact, at the time of the accident, the
deceased was working as cleaner under the opposite party no.1,
who is the owner of lorry, and died due to accidental death on
account of electric shock during the course of employment while
discharging his duties as cleaner. The said fact was disputed by
the appellant, however, failed to adduce any cogent and
plausible evidence to support its contention. The opposite party
no.1 also filed counter stating that deceased employee did not
work with him and that essentially denying the employer and
employee relationship. However, the opposite party no.1 did not
give evidence to that effect before the Commissioner and
therefore, the contention of the opposite party no.1 cannot be
taken into consideration.
13. The documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A4-final report filed by
the Police clearly establishes that there was employer and
employee relationship between the deceased and the opposite
party no.1. Ex.P3-postmortem report of the deceased also
LNA,J
clearly establishes that deceased had expired due to
electrocution. Further, as per Ex.B1-insurance policy, the policy
was in force as on the date of accident and therefore, the
appellant-insurance company is liable to pay compensation.
14. In Golla Rajanna v. The Divisional Manager 1, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"8. Section 30 of the Act provides for appeals to the
High Court. To the extent, the provision reads as
follows:
"30. Appeals.--(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court
from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely--
(a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether
by way of redemption of a half-monthly payment or otherwise
or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum;
(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty under Section 4-A;
(b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half-monthly
payment;
(c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation
among the dependants of a deceased workman, or disallowing
any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant;
(d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount
of an indemnity under the provisions of sub-section (2) of
Section 12; or
(e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement
or registering the same or providing for the registration of the
same subject to conditions:
Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a
substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and, in
the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to
(2017) 1 SCC 45
LNA,J
in clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is
not less than three hundred rupees:"
(emphasis supplied)
xxx
10. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's
Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on
facts. Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope
of the appeal only to substantial questions of law, being
a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has
missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and
has ventured to reappreciate the evidence and recorded
its own findings on percentage of disability for which
also there is no basis. The whole exercise made by the
High Court is not within the competence of the High
Court under Section 30 of the Act."
15. The similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in North East Karnataka Transport Corporation v.
Smt. Sujatha 2. The Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"9. At the outset, we may take note of the fact, being a
settled principle, that the question as to whether the
employee met with an accident, whether the accident
occurred during the course of employment, whether it
arose out of an employment, how and in what manner
the accident occurred, who was negligent in causing the
accident, whether there existed any relationship of
employee and employer, what was the age and monthly
salary of the employee, how many are the dependants of
(2019) 11 SCC 514
LNA,J
the deceased employee, the extent of disability caused to
the employee due to injuries suffered in an accident,
whether there was any insurance coverage obtained by
the employer to cover the incident, etc. are some of the
material issues which arise for the just decision of the
Commissioner in a claim petition when an employee
suffers any bodily injury or dies during the course of his
employment and he/his LRs sue(s) his employer to
claim compensation under the Act.
10. The aforementioned questions are essentially the
questions of fact and, therefore, they are required to be
proved with the aid of evidence. Once they are proved
either way, the findings recorded thereon are regarded
as the findings of fact.
11. The appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to
the High Court against the order of the Commissioner
lies only against the specific orders set out in clauses (a)
to (e) of Section 30 of the Act with a further rider
contained in the first proviso to the section that the
appeal must involve substantial questions of law.
12. In other words, the appeal provided under Section
30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the
Commissioner is not like a regular first appeal akin to
Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which
can be heard both on facts and law. The appellate
jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the appeal is
confined only to examine the substantial questions of
law arising in the case."
LNA,J
16. Following the above decisions rendered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, the High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Reliance
General Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Shyam and another 3,
observed that "it is the settled position of law that limited
jurisdiction has been given to the High Court confined to the
substantial question of law only and the High Court cannot
venture and re-appreciate the evidence and finding of fact
recorded on the evidence led by both the parties."
17. The Commissioner, on due consideration of the evidence,
material placed on record, specifically, Ex.A3-final report filed
by the Police and Ex.A3-postmortem report of the deceased, had
come to conclusion that deceased while working as cleaner
under the opposite party no.1 had expired during the course of
employment while discharging duties. This Court does not find
any reason or ground to interfere with the conclusion arrived at
by the Commissioner.
18. In view of the above discussion, evidence, material placed
on record and the legal position, the Commissioner had rightly
awarded the compensation amount and there are no grounds to
interfere with the said award by this Court.
2022 SCC Online Raj 1639
LNA,J
19. Insofar as awarding of interest at 12% is concerned, as
per the recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Anjali and others vs Lokendra Rathod and others 4, decided
on 06.12.2022, had granted interest @ 9% per annum. In view
of the above decision, in considered opinion of this Court that
interest at the rate of 12% per annum awarded by the
Commissioner is on higher side. Therefore, the same is revised
to 9% per annum.
20. From the above factual background and discussion, in
considered opinion of this Court, the appellant failed to make
out any case warranting interference of this Court with the
award passed by the Commissioner, except the rate of interest
granted by the Commissioner, which is revised to 9% per
annum instead of 12% per annum.
21. In the result, this C.M.A. is allowed in part. There shall be
no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand closed.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J
Date: 19.02.2024
kkm
2023(1) ALD 107(SC)
