Telangana High Court

Takur Bhushan Singh vs Ashfaque Mohammed And Another on 20 February, 2024

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

        CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.271 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against order

dated 29.09.2012 in W.C.No.111 of 2003 (NF) on the file of the

Commissioner for Employees' Compensation-cum-Deputy

Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad (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 26.04.2002 and the same was

partly allowed by the Commissioner granting compensation of

Rs.1,75,832/-. Dissatisfied with the same, the present Civil

Miscellaneous Appeal is filed at the instance of the applicant

before the Commissioner seeking enhancement of compensation

and grant of interest.

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 cleaner on lorry bearing No.MP 04 F 8041 under the

MGP,J CMA_271_2014

employment of opposite party No.1. On 26.04.2002, while the

applicant was traveling on the said lorry, at about 06:00 AM,

when the lorry reached on National Highway No.7 at Argul Village,

Nizamabad District, the driver of the said lorry drove it in high

speed in rash and negligent manner and lost control over. The

lorry initially, dashed to a stationed lorry bearing No.ADB 8186,

then dashed against four persons, who were standing by the side

of the road and lastly, dashed three stationed lorries bearing

Nos.ADH 325, AAK 7801 and ATK 8626. Due to the said accident,

the applicant, driver of the lorry and four persons standing on the

road sustained injuries and fractures. The applicant sustained

fractures to 5th metacarpal of right hand, fracture of 8th, 9th and

10th ribs of right side of the chest, injuries to right shoulder,

multiple and grievous injuries to the other parts of the body.

Immediately, the applicant was shifted to Deepa Orthopedic

Hospital, Nizamabad, where the applicant took treatment and

incurred more than a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards medical

expenses, treatment and extra nourishment etc,. In this regard, a

case was registered in Crime No.40 of 2002 by Jakranpally Police.

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

occurred during the course and out of his employment as cleaner

MGP,J CMA_271_2014

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

aged about 20 years as on the date of the accident and he was

being paid an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month towards wages by

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

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.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him.

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

filed its written statement 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 contended that the

driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not 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-7.

No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by opposite party

MGP,J CMA_271_2014

No.1. On behalf of opposite party No.2, no oral evidence was

adduced, but Ex.B-1 was got marked.

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

Commissioner framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the injured/applicant Takur Bhushan Singh met with an accident on 26.04.2002 during the course and out of his employment as cleaner on the lorry bearing No.MP 04 F 8041 under the employment of 1st opposite party and sustained injuries?

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? And

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.1,75,832/-

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

applicant/appellant is that the Commissioner erred in not

MGP,J CMA_271_2014

granting interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident on

the compensation amount. Hence, prayed to modify the impugned

order by allowing the appeal and granting interest.

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 interest and interference of this

Court is not necessary.

12. Now the point for determination is as follows:

"Whether the findings of the Commissioner with regard to determination of interest suffer from any illegality?"

Point:

13. This Court has perused the entire evidence and material

placed on record. The applicant got examined himself as A.W.1

reiterating the contents of his claim application. Though, he was

cross-examined nothing contrary was elicited in the same. In

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

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

examined the applicant and also verified the previous medical

record and found fracture of 5th metacarpal right hand, fracture of

MGP,J CMA_271_2014

ribs 8th, 9th and 10th ribs right side chest and abrasion right

shoulder. He issued disability certificate by assessing the

disability at 65% being partial and permanent in nature and

determined the loss of earning capacity at 65%. In the cross-

examination, he denied all the suggestions, which were put to him

by opposite party No.2.

14. The Commissioner after considering both oral and

documentary evidence placed on record by both the sides has

rightly came to the conclusion that the applicant was employed

under opposite party No.1 and the accident occurred during the

course and out of his employment. Based on the evidence of

A.W.2 and documentary evidence placed on record by the

applicant, the Commissioner rightly assessed the loss of earning

capacity at 65%. Further, as opposite party No.2 did not adduce

and evidence to prove the case set up by it, the Commissioner

held that both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable

to pay compensation to the applicant.

15. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Commissioner

based on the documentary evidence on record has rightly

determined the age of the applicant as 20 years. Further, though,

MGP,J CMA_271_2014

the applicant claimed that he was being paid an amount of

Rs.3,000/- per month towards wages, as the applicant has not

adduced any cogent and convincing evidence, the Commissioner

has rightly taken minimum wages prevailing as on the date of

accident for computing the compensation. Hence, this Court is of

the considered opinion that the Commissioner has awarded just

and reasonable compensation. Therefore, interference of this

Court into the said aspect is unwarranted.

16. Insofar as rate of interest is concerned, it is apt to refer to

the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shobha

v. The Chairman, Vithalrao Shinde Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana

Ltd 1, wherein it is held as follows:

"6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court insofar as awarding the interest @ 12% p.a. after the period of expiry of one month from 25.01.2017, is hereby quashed and set aside and it is observed and held that the appellants herein-original claimants shall be entitled to the interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of compensation as awarded by the Commissioner from the date of the incident i.e., 29.11.2009.