Telangana High Court
M/S. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. ... vs Smt. Tambareni Tirapathamma, Khammam ... on 5 January, 2024
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.658 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 09.02.2011 passed in
W.C.No.110 of 2009, on the file of the learned Commissioner for
Employees' Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of
Labour-IV, Hyderabad (hereinafter be referred as 'the
Comissioner'), the present appeal is filed by the
appellant/Opposite party No.2/Insurance Company seeking to
set-aside the same.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be
referred as they were arrayed before the Commissioner.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that the applicants who
are the wife, son and mother of the deceased-Laxminarayana,
filed the claim application claiming compensation of
Rs.6,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased-
Laxminarayana. As per the applicants, the deceased was
employed by opposite party No.1 as Driver on Eicher Van
bearing No.AP 20Y 4779. On 28.05.2009, the deceased was on
his duty as driver on the said Van was proceeding from
Manuguru to Singarayakonda and at about 9.30 PM, when the
MGP,J
Van reached near Palavagu, Mondikunta Village in
Ashwapuram Mandal outskirts, one tipper bearing No.AP 37V
5112 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner
at high speed, dashed against the Eicher van of the deceased.
As a result, the deceased died on the spot. The P.S.,
Aswapuram, registered a case in Crime No.55 of 2009 under
Section 304-A IPC and took up investigation. It is further
contended by the applicants that the deceased was aged about
40 years at the time of accident and was getting wages of
Rs.6,000/- per month apart from Rs.100/- as Batta per day. As
the accident occurred during the course and out of employment,
opposite party No.1, being the owner and opposite party No.2,
being the Insurance Company, are jointly and severally liable to
pay compensation.
4. Both the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 have filed their
counter. Opposite party No.1 admitted the employment of the
deceased as driver on the said Eicher Van bearing No.AP 20Y
4779, admitted the occurrence and narration of the accident,
admitted the death of the deceased and that the accident arose
during the course and out of employment, admitted the wages,
Batta and further contended that the van has valid Insurance
policy and was existing as on the date of accident and therefore,
MGP,J
in case compensation is awarded, opposite party No.2 alone is
liable to pay the same and prayed to dismiss the claim against
him.
5. Opposite party No.2 filed its counter, denied the
averments of the claim application, wages, manner of accident,
death of the deceased, driving license, permit, fitness certificate
and contended that the claim of compensation is excess and
exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim application filed
against them. It also contended that the owner and insurer of
the tipper are necessary parties to the claim application and
therefore, the application is not maintainable for non-joinder of
said parties.
6. Before the Commissioner, the 1st applicant was examined
as AW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 on their behalf.
7. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined.
However, with the consent of learned counsel for the appellants,
Ex.B1-Copy of Insurance Policy was marked by opposite party
No.2.
8. After considering the entire evidence and documents filed
by both sides, the learned Commissioner has awarded
compensation of Rs.3,45,040/- along with interest.
MGP,J
9. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal is filed by the
Appellant/opposite party No.2/Insurance Company.
10. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
Appellant/Insurance Company is that no employee-employer
relationship between the deceased and opposite party No.1 was
established and further argued that another claim application
was instituted by some other persons claiming as legal
representatives of the very same deceased and hence, the
application filed by the applicants is not maintainable for non-
joinder of proper and necessary parties and prayed to allow the
appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Commissioner.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents argued
that the learned Commissioner, after considering all the
aspects, has awarded just and reasonable compensation for
which the interference of this Court is unwarranted.
12. Now the point that emerges for determination is
(i) Whether the applicants are entitled for the
compensation?
(ii) Whether the Appellant-Insurance Company is liable
to pay the said compensation?
MGP,J
POINT:-
13. This Court has perused the entire evidence and
documents filed by both sides. The applicant as AW1 has
reiterated the contents of the claim application and deposed
about the manner of the accident. She also relied upon Ex.A1-
Copy of FIR, Ex.A2-Copy of charge sheet which discloses that
the police have registered a case in Crime No.55 of 2009 under
Section 304-A IPC and took up investigation and laid charge
sheet. Ex.A3 is the copy of inquest report which shows that the
deceased was working as driver under opposite party No.1 and
Ex.A6 is the copy of driving license which shows that the
deceased was having valid and effective driving license as on the
date of accident. Ex.A4 is the copy of post mortem examination
report which shows that the deceased died in a road traffic
accident. Ex.A5 is the report of Motor Vehicle Inspector. It is
pertinent to state that the opposite party No.1 in his counter
admitted the employment of the deceased as driver for his
vehicle i.e. Eicher Van bearing No.AP 20Y 4779. He also
admitted the wages and death of the deceased. Therefore, the
employment of the deceased has been established by opposite
party No.1 through his counter.
MGP,J
14. Opposite party No.2-Insurance Company except taking
the plea that the applicants are not entitled for any
compensation, has not adduced any cogent and convincing
evidence to disprove the evidence of the applicants. Under these
circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants that there is no employee-employer relationship
between the deceased and opposite party No.1 is unsustainable.
15. Now coming to the other aspect, learned counsel for the
appellant has stated in his grounds of appeal that another claim
was instituted by some other persons claiming as legal
representatives of the very same deceased. It is pertinent to
state that except stating that another claim has been instituted
by some other persons, the Insurance Company has not taken
any steps nor filed any documentary evidence to show that
another claim has been filed by some other persons as legal
representatives of the very same deceased. Hence, this Court
cannot accept the said contention without any proof either oral
or documentary. It is also pertinent to state that the learned
Commissioner, after taking into consideration the age and
relying upon the minimum wages fixed by the Government vide
G.O.Ms.No.83, L.E.T & F (Lab.II), dated 22.11.2006,
w.e.f.04.12.2006 and by applying relevant age factor, has fairly
MGP,J
calculated the amount of compensation and has awarded
compensation of Rs.3,45,040/- which is reasonable
compensation.
16. Under these circumstances, this Court finds no reason to
interfere with the finding of the learned Commissioner. Hence,
the Appeal is devoid of merits and substance and is liable to be
dismissed.
17. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed without costs.
_____________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.05.01.2024
ysk
MGP,J
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.658 OF 2011
Dt.05.01.2024
ysk
