Telangana High Court

Medaboina Krishnaiah vs P.Upender Reddy And Anr on 4 January, 2024

        HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

         CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1357 OF 2011

JUDGMENT:

1. Dissatisfied with the compensation amount awarded by

the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant

Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda, (hereinafter be referred as

'the Commissioner') in W.C.No.263 of 2006(NF) {DCL (old)}

[W.C.No.10 of 2009 (NF) {ACL(New)}], dated 29.10.2009, the

applicant has filed the present appeal for enhancement of the

compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the applicant has

filed the claim application claiming compensation of

Rs.2,50,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in an

accident that occurred on 13.09.2006. It is stated by the

applicant that he is working as a Driver on the Auto bearing

No.AP-24W-0349 belonging to the opposite party No.1. On

13.09.2006, the applicant was driving the Auto at a slow speed

from Kattangoor to Muthyalammagudem. At about 10.00 P.M.,

suddenly a lorry came from opposite direction. In order to avoid

hitting the said lorry, the applicant took his Auto to the extreme

left side of the road and in that process, the Auto fell in a road

side ditch and turned turtle. As a result, the applicant

MGP,J CMA.1357 of 2011

sustained severe fractures on his legs. Immediately, he was

admitted in Kamineni Hospitals, Narketpally, where he was

treated as inpatient from 13.09.2006 to 05.10.2006 and had

underwent number of surgeries. The applicant sustained

Posterior dislocation of left hip, fracture of right femur and

fracture of upper pole of right patella. Due to the said fractures

and injuries, he has become permanently disabled.

P.S.Kattangoor have registered a case in Crime No.140 of 2006

under Section 338 IPC. It is further contended that the

applicant was aged 33 years and was getting wages of

Rs.4000/- per month. Therefore, 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 insurer of

the Auto bearing No.AP-24W-0349, both are liable to pay the

compensation.

3. Opposite party No.1 received notices and filed counter

admitting the ownership of the Auto involved in the accident,

manner of accident, employment of the injured and also

admitted the wages paid to the applicant and further contended

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

therefore, opposite party No.2 alone is liable to pay

compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim against him.

MGP,J CMA.1357 of 2011

4. Opposite party No.2 filed its counter denying the

averments made in the claim petition and hence, prayed to

dismiss the claim against them.

5. Before the Commissioner, the applicant was examined as

PW1 and got examined PW2, who is an Orthopaedic Surgeon

and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the opposite party

Nos.1 & 2, no oral evidence was adduced. However, Ex.B1-Copy

of Insurance policy and Ex.B2 copy of permit issued by RTO

were marked on their behalf.

6. After considering the entire evidence and documents

available on record, the learned Commissioner has awarded an

amount of Rs.2,04,725/- as compensation to the applicant

which payable by both the opposite party Nos.1 & 2. Being not

satisfied with the same, the present appeal by the applicant for

enhancement of the compensation.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as

learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant is that though the applicant has proved the case and

also relied upon Exs.A1 to A7 and also got examined AW2-

Orthopaedic surgeon, but the leaned Tribunal without

MGP,J CMA.1357 of 2011

considering the same, has awarded meager amount and

therefore prayed to allow the appeal by enhancing the

compensation amount.

9. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for Insurance

Company has argued that the learned Commissioner, after

considering all the aspects, has awarded reasonable

compensation, for which the interference of this Court is

unwarranted.

10. Now the point that emerges for determination is,

Whether the order passed by the learned

Commissioner requires interference of this Court?

POINT:-

11. This Court has perused the entire evidence and

documents adduced on both sides. The applicant as PW1 has

reiterated the contents of the claim application, deposed about

the manner of accident, injuries sustained by him. In order to

prove the same, he got examined PW2, who is an Orthopaedic

surgeon. PW2, in his evidence stated that he examined the

applicant on 07.08.2008 and as per the record he has found

that the applicant sustained certain injuries which are,

Posterior dislocation of left hip, fracture of right femur and

MGP,J CMA.1357 of 2011

fracture of upper pole of right patella. Due to the said fractures

and injuries, he has become permanently disabled as he cannot

sit and squat properly. Therefore, he has assessed the

permanent disability @ 25% and loss of earning capacity @ 50%

as he cannot perform duty as he does previously. In the cross-

examination, he admitted that he has not given any treatment

to PW1-applicant and denied the other suggestions posed to

him. He also denied the suggestion that there is a possibility to

come down the disability in future after giving physiotherapy

and also denied that the disability assessed is highly excessive

and that the applicant has not sustained any injuries as stated

above.

12. It is pertinent to state that Exs.A1 & A2 i.e., copy of FIR

and charge sheet, discloses that Kattangoor Police registered a

case in Crime No.140 of 2006 and filed a final report in respect

of the said accident. Ex.A4 is the disability certificate issued by

Medical board, Nalgonda which shows that the applicant has

sustained severe injuries and suffered disability. Ex.A5-Driving

license discloses that the applicant is having valid and effective

driving license as on the date of accident. Ex.A7-Insurance

Policy shows that the policy is valid and existing as on the date

of accident.

MGP,J CMA.1357 of 2011

13. Now, coming to the aspect of compensation, the applicant

in his evidence stated that he is getting salary of Rs.4,000/- per

month and the Opposite party No.1 has also admitted the said

fact in their counter. However, the learned Commissioner has

not considered the said aspect as no documentary evidence is

filed to show that the salary of the applicant is Rs.4,000/- and

further, the opposite party No.1 has not entered into the witness

box to prove the said fact. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer

the decision reported in Mamta Devi v. The Reliance General

Insurance Company Limited 1, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

held as under:

"11) Having regard to the object of the Act which envisages dispensation of social justice, we are of the considered view that the Deputy Labour Commissioner-

cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation fell in error in arriving at a conclusion that claimants' income is to be construed at Rs.3,900/- p.m. or the minimum wage to be computed should be at Rs.150/- per day in the absence of any proof of income. The written statement filed by the employer would be a complete answer to this, inasmuch as it is categorically admitted by the employer that deceased was drawing Rs.6,000/- per month as wages. The deceased was a truck driver and had four mouths to feed at the time of his demise in the year 2011. By no stretch of imagination, it can be construed that income which he was earning as claimed by his wife

1 2023 (4) ALD 49 (SC)

MGP,J CMA.1357 of 2011

in her statement made on oath can be construed as excessive or not commensurate with the wages earned by a truck driver in the year 2011.

12) Thus, the irresistible conclusion which we have to draw is, the unchallenged statement of the wife of the deceased who had deposed that her husband was earning Rs.6,000/- per month deserves to be accepted as gospel truth. We see no reason for disbelieving her statement."

14. Therefore, by considering the principle laid down in the above

said citation and since the applicant and opposite party No.1 have

categorically stated that the applicant was paid Rs.4,000/- per month

as salary, this Court is of the view that the learned Commissioner

erred in reducing the salary of the applicant and by considering fixed

wages as fixed by the Government in respect of a driver. Hence this

Court is inclined to interfere with the findings of the learned

Commissioner, so far as salary of the applicant is concerned and

thereby the salary of the applicant may be considered @ Rs.4,000/-

per month while calculating the compensation.

15. Based on the above discussion, the applicant is entitled for

compensation, which is calculated as under:

Rs.4,000/- x 60 x 50 x 201.66 = Rs.2,41,992/-

100 100

MGP,J CMA.1357 of 2011

16. The other contention of the learned counsel for the applicant

was that the learned Commissioner erred in not awarding any interest

on the compensation amount. In this regard, it is pertinent to

mention the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Meenaraj v. P.

Adigurusamy 2, which is 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 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."

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

is evident that the applicant is entitled for interest @ 12% per annum

on the compensation amount from the date of accident. Hence, this

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

MGP,J CMA.1357 of 2011

Court is inclined to award interest @ 12% per annum from the date of

accident.

18. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The

order dated 29.10.2009 in W.C.No.263 of 2006(NF) {DCL (old)}

[W.C.No.10 of 2009 (NF) {ACL(New)}], passed by the learned

Commissioner for Workmens' Compensation and Assistant

Commissioner of Llabour, Nalgonda, is modified to the extent of