Telangana High Court
United India Insurance Company Ltd., vs Smt. G.Channamma And Another on 4 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.324 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed
against order dated 11.01.2013 in W.C.No.126 of 2010 on the file
of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation and Deputy
Commissioner of Labour-II, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as
'the Commissioner'). The said claim application was filed by the
applicant therein seeking compensation for death of one Sri G.
Balaraju (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), who died in an
accident that occurred on 09.04.2010 and the same was partly
allowed by the Commissioner awarding compensation of
Rs.4,44,771/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is filed at the instance of opposite party
No.2 before the Commissioner i.e., the insurance company.
2. The appellant herein is opposite party No.2, respondent No.1
herein is applicant and respondent No.2 herein is opposite party
No.1 before the Commissioner. For the sake of convenience, the
parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the
Commissioner.
MGP,J
CMA_324_2014
3. The brief facts of the case of the applicant are that she is
wife of the deceased. The deceased was working as labourer
under the employment of opposite party No.1 and received
personal injuries in an accident during the course and out of his
employment resulting in his death. According to the applicant, on
09.04.2010, the deceased was on duty as labourer and he was
performing his duties at a newly constructing apartments' site of
opposite party No.1 at Rangareddy Nagar. While so, when the
deceased was getting down from the third floor of the said
apartment through stair case in order to remove some part of the
crane, accidentally, due to darkness in the night, he slipped and
fell down in the pit dug for the lift. As a result, the deceased
sustained grievous injuries besides multiple fractures, he also
received head injury. Immediately, he was shifted to Ram
Hospital, Shapurnagar, for treatment, where the doctors declared
him as brought dead. In this regard, a case was registered in
Crime No.115 of 2010 on the file of Police Station Balangar.
4. It is further the case of the applicant that the deceased was
aged 35 years as on the date of the accident and that he was being
paid an amount of Rs.5,500/- per month towards wages and
MGP,J
CMA_324_2014
Rs.200/- per day towards batha. Further, the accident occurred
during the course and out of his employment under opposite party
No.1. The deceased was covered under the Workmen's
Compensation Policy taken by opposite party No.1 from opposite
party No.2 and the said insurance was valid as on the date of the
accident. Hence, the present claim application is filed seeking
compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-.
5. Opposite party No.1 filed his counter admitting the employee
and employer relationship between the deceased and opposite
party No.1. Opposite party No.1 admitted the age, wages and
death of the deceased in the accident that occurred on
09.04.2010. It is also admitted that the risk of the deceased was
covered under the policy obtained by opposite party No.1 from
opposite party No.2 and the same was in force as on the date of
the accident, as such, if there is any liability opposite party No.2
alone is liable to pay. Therefore, prayed to dismiss case against
them.
6. Opposite party No.2 filed its counter denying the averments
of the claim application such as age, wages, manner of the
accident, employee and employer relationship of the applicant and
MGP,J
CMA_324_2014
opposite party No.1. Further, as the compensation claimed was
excess and exorbitant, opposite party No.2 prayed to dismiss the
claim application.
7. In support of his case, the applicant got examined herself as
A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. No oral or documentary
evidence was adduced by both opposite parties, but Ex.B-1 was
got marked.
8. On the basis of the above pleadings and evidence, the
Commissioner framed the following issues:
"1. Whether the deceased was an employee within the meaning
of the Act and died during the course and out of his
employment with opposite party No.1?
2. If yes, who are liable to pay compensation to the applicant?
And;
3. What is the amount of compensation entitled by the
applicant?"
9. After considering the evidence and documents filed by both
sides, the Commissioner awarded an amount of Rs.4,44,771/-
towards compensation to the applicant. Aggrieved by the same,
the present appeal is filed by opposite party No.2.
10. Heard both sides.
MGP,J
CMA_324_2014
11. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant/opposite party No.2 is that deceased was employed by
the contractor and not by opposite party No.1, as such there is no
employee and employer relationship between the deceased and
opposite party No.1. Without considering the said aspect, the
Commissioner erred in awarding compensation to the applicant.
It is also contended that the compensation awarded by the
Commissioner is excess and exorbitant. Hence, prayed to allow
the appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the
Commissioner.
12. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent
No.1/applicant contended that the Commissioner after
considering all the aspects has awarded reasonable compensation
and interference of this Court is unnecessary. It is further
contended that the present appeal is not maintainable as the
appellant/opposite party No.2 failed to deposit the amount of
compensation granted by the Commissioner, which is mandate to
file an appeal under the provisions of the Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
MGP,J
CMA_324_2014
13. Now, the point for determination is as follows:
"Whether the applicant is entitled for the compensation
as granted by the Commissioner?"
Point:-
14. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents
placed on record by both the parties. The applicant got examined
herself as A.W.1 reiterating the contents of the claim application
such as manner of the accident and also death of the deceased.
In support of her case, she got marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. In the
cross-examination, she accepted that she has not filed
employment certificate of the deceased to prove his employment.
She stated that her brother Garammi Chennaiah worked as
supervisor with opposite party No.1 and he used to take the works
on contract basis from opposite party No.1 and engage the labour
and execute them. She denied that the deceased worked under
said Garammi Chennaiah.
15. A perusal of Ex.A-1 shows that a case has been registered in
Crime No.115 of 2010 on the file of Police Station Balanagar and
after thorough investigation final result under Ex.A-6 was filed.
Ex.A-2 is copy of complaint, Ex.A-3 is copy of spot panchanama,
MGP,J
CMA_324_2014
Ex.A-4 is copy of inquest report, Ex.A-5 is copy of postmortem
report and Ex.A-6 is copy of death certificate of deceased. All
these documents clearly disclose occurrence of the accident,
occupation and employment of the deceased and also death of the
deceased. Ex.A-8/B-1 is copy of insurance policy, which clearly
discloses that the risk of the deceased is covered under the said
policy and the same was in force as on the date of the accident.
Opposite party No.2, except mere contention that there is no
employee and employer relationship between the deceased and
opposite party No.1 and that the deceased was employed under a
contractor has not adduced any cogent and convincing evidence to
prove that the deceased was not employed under opposite party
No.1. On the other hand, the applicant relied upon Exs.A-1 to A-8
to prove the case set up by her. Considering the said aspects, the
Commissioner has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the
deceased was employed under opposite party No.1 and
interference of this Court is unwarranted.
16. It is pertinent to state that the Commissioner relied upon
Ex.A-5 postmortem examination report and rightly considered the
age of the deceased as 35 years as on the date of accident for the
MGP,J
CMA_324_2014
purpose of calculating compensation. Furthermore, as no
evidence is produced by applicant with regard to wages paid to the
deceased by opposite party No.1, the Commissioner considered
minimum wages and has rightly awarded compensation, which is
just and reasonable and interference of this Court is unwarranted.
The appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
17. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/applicant also
contended that the present appeal is not maintainable as the
appellant/opposite party No.2 failed to deposit the amount of
compensation granted by the Commissioner, which is mandate to
file an appeal under the provisions of the Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923.
18. It is pertinent to state that as rightly contended by the
learned counsel for respondent No.1/applicant under the
provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, an appeal
to the order passed by the Commissioner lies to High Court and it
is mandate to deposit the compensation granted by the
Commissioner by the appellant before filing the appeal and also
file a memo to that effect, failing which appeal is not maintainable.
MGP,J
CMA_324_2014
It is stated that in the present case, the appellant/opposite party
No.2 did not deposit amount of compensation granted by the
Commissioner before filing the appeal and the same was
subsequently, deposited after filing of recovery petition and after
receiving notice. Under these circumstances also, the appeal is
not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.
19. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed
confirming the order dated 11.01.2013 in W.C.No.126 of 2010 on
the file of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation and
Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Hyderabad. There shall be no
order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending,
shall stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Date: 04.03.2024
GVR
