Telangana High Court

M/S.United India Insurance Co ... vs Kannabiona Rajamma And 5 Ors on 21 June, 2024

Author: G. Radha Rani

Bench: G. Radha Rani

        THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

         CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1356 of 2012


JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company - Opposite Party No.2 (for

short ''O.P.2'') aggrieved by the order in W.C.No.39 of 1997 dated 10.08.1999

passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation - cum - Assistant

Commissioner of Labor, Karimnagar.

2. The respondents 1 to 5 are the applicants and the respondent No.6 is the

opposite party No.1 (for short ''O.P.1.'') - Owner of the vehicle.

3. The parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the Commissioner.

4. The facts of the case as stated by the applicants in their application were

that the deceased Kannaboina Odelu was employed by O.P.1 as driver on his

jeep bearing No.AP-15-T-1354. On 06.11.1996, on the orders of O.P.1, the

deceased workman went to Korapally from Jammikunta by carrying passengers.

On return at about 10:00 PM, when he reached the outskirts of Korapally, the

jeep turned turtle in the paddy fields of one Polasani Narayana Rao and the

driver of the jeep Kannaboina Odelu died on the spot. The Police, Jammikunta

registered a case in Crime No.174 of 1996. The claimants filed petition

Dr.GRR, J cma_1356_2012

claiming compensation contending that the workman died during the course of

and out of employment.

5. They contended that the workman was aged about 28 years and the O.P.1

used to pay Rs.2,000/- per month towards wages by the date of accident. As

such, filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.2,11,790/-.

6. The O.P.1 filed counter admitting the employment of the deceased as

driver on his jeep and that he died in the accident on 06.11.1996 during the

course of employment. He stated that the said jeep was insured with O.P.2

under valid insurance policy. But, he contended that he used to pay only

Rs.800/- as wages to the deceased workman. He further contended that the

accident took place due to the negligence of the workman and he was aged 35

years by the date of the accident.

7. The O.P.2 filed counter and called for strict proof of the petition

averments.

8. Basing on the said pleadings, the Commissioner framed the issues as

follows:

i) Whether the deceased died during the course of and out of employment or not?

ii) What was the age and wage of the workman at the time of his death?

Dr.GRR, J cma_1356_2012

9. On behalf of the applicants, the mother of the deceased was examined as

PW.1. On behalf of O.P.2, the Assistant Administrative Officer of the

Insurance Company was examined as RW.1 and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked

on behalf of O.P.2. Ex.R1 was the certified copy of the driving license of the

deceased and Ex.R2 was the copy of the insurance policy.

10. The Commissioner on considering the oral and documentary evidence on

record, held that the workman was employed by O.P.1 and died during the

course of and out of employment. The vehicle was validly insured under Ex.R2.

As such, both the O.P.s.1 and 2 were jointly and severally liable to pay

compensation to the dependants of the deceased. The Commissioner considered

the age of the deceased as per the driving license marked under Ex.R1 as

34 years and had taken the minimum wages fixed for the employment as driver

under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 to calculate the compensation and fixed

the monthly wages of the deceased at Rs.1,520/- per month and assessed the

compensation payable to the applicants as Rs.1,51,544/- with interest @ 10 %

per annum from the date of accident till the date of deposit payable within 30

days from the date of the judgment.

11. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award of the Commissioner, the

Insurance Company preferred this appeal contended that the policy did not

cover the risk of the driver, employee on a jeep, which was run as a taxi. The

Dr.GRR, J cma_1356_2012

Commissioner erred in granting interest @ 10 % per annum and ought not to

have taken the wages of the deceased at Rs.1,520/- per month as against the

counter filed by O.P.1 that he paid only Rs.800/- per month and prayed to allow

the appeal.

12. Heard Sri V.Sambasiva Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant -

Insurance Company - O.P.1 and Sri Srinivasa Srikanth, the learned counsel for

the respondents - applicants

13. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in North-East

Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha 1, the appeal provided

under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 to the High Court

against the order of the Commissioner is not a regular first appeal under

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.

14. The two-Judge Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Golla

Rajamma and Others v. Divisional Manager and Another2, held that:

"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

2019 11 SCC 514

2017 1 SCC 45

Dr.GRR, J cma_1356_2012

substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate 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 Hon'ble Apex Court in C.Manjamma v. New India Assurance

Company Limited 3 held that the conclusions arrived at by the Commissioner if

were a possible view, it extinguishes the possibility of perversity in the findings.

16. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud in K.Sivaraman

v. P.Sathish Kumar4 held that:

"25. The 1923 Act is a socio-beneficial legislation and its provisions and amendments thereto must be interpreted in a manner so as to not deprive the employees of the benefit of the legislation. The object of enacting the Act was to ameliorate the hardship of economically poor employees who were exposed to risks in work, or occupational hazards by providing a cheaper and quicker machinery for compensating them with pecuniary benefits. The amendments to the 1923 Act have been enacted to further this salient purpose by either streamlining the

(2022) 6 SCC 206

(2020) 4 SCC 594

Dr.GRR, J cma_1356_2012

compensation process or enhancing the amount of compensation payable to the employee."

17. Considering the provisions under Section 30 of the Act that the

Commissioner was the last authority on facts and the appellate jurisdiction of

the High Court was confined only to examine the substantial questions of law

arising in the case and the conclusions arrived by the Commissioner, even if

considered as a possible view, they could not be considered as perversity and

considering the object of the Act, wherein a beneficial construction had to be

given and the order of the Commissioner would disclose that he considered all

the aspects raised by the Insurance Company, it is considered that there is no

perversity in the findings of the Commissioner, which would necessitate

formulating any substantial questions of law.

18. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the

judgment of the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation - cum -