Telangana High Court

The United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Smt.R.Mangamma And Anr on 18 June, 2025

     THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

      CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.531 OF 2012

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by order, dated 20.01.2005, in W.C.No.9 of

2004 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's

Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour at

Nalgonda, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed.

2. Heard Mr. V. Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for

appellant and Mr. K. Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel for

respondents.

3. The applicant (Bengi Nagesh) in W.C.No.9 of 2004 was

workman employed by the 1st opposite party (R.Mangamma)

on DCM Van bearing No.AP-24 T-554. While the van was

proceeding from Suryapet to Hyderabad on the outskirts of

Chityala Village, at about 3:45 p.m., an unknown vehicle's

stepney tyre fell on the road in front of the applicant's van.

The driver of the van ran over the said tyre and the vehicle

turned turtle resulting in the injury of driver and

cleaner/applicant. Crime No.60 of 2003 was registered in the

Chityala Police Station under Section 337 of IPC.

JAK, J C.M.A.No.531_2012

4. Accident occurred on 12.08.2003, injured were taken

to the Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally. The applicant was

admitted in the casualty ward on 12.08.2003, he was treated

as an inpatient from 12.08.2003 to 21.08.2003 (9 days) by

an Orthopaedic surgeon and a General physician. The

applicant was discharged on 21.08.2003. There is no dispute

with regard to other aspects. Insurance policy bearing

No.151100/31/02/ 15526 issued by the 2nd opposite party

(for the van) is for the period from 27.03.2003 to midnight of

26.03.2004 is not disputed. Insurance policy is covered for

owner cum driver with an additional payment of premium for

two employees. The applicant claimed an amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- from both the opposite parties. Opposite party

No.1 was called absent and set ex-parte. Commissioner

examined AW1 and AW2 and considered their evidence,

Exs.A1 to A8 and Ex.B1 were marked and considered. A

compensation of Rs.1,58,982/- was awarded to the applicant

to be paid by both the opposite parties and to deposit the

amount before the Commissioner for Workmen's

Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, JAK, J C.M.A.No.531_2012

within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing

which an interest @12% per annum on the amount of the

compensation from the date of the accident be paid to the

applicant.

5. Challenging the said order, the appellant/Insurance

Company filed the present appeal.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant

submitted that injuries suffered by the applicant are simple

in nature and that the Commissioner awarded compensation

much in excess, for the injuries suffered by applicant.

Learned counsel placed reliance upon the report of medical

officer, dated 12.08.2003 issued by Kamineni Hospital.

Drawing attention of this Court to the said report, it is

pointed out that 6 injuries are reflected as simple injuries (in

column No.4).

7. Learned counsel contended that when injuries are

simple in nature, Commissioner erred in awarding a

compensation of above Rs.1,50,000/- to the applicant and

that there is no truth in the claim of the applicant. It is JAK, J C.M.A.No.531_2012

pointed out that awarding amount in excess by the

Commissioner, when injuries are simple in nature would

amount to substantial question of law and therefore, the

order of the Commissioner be set aside.

8. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that

applicant suffered injuries along with the driver on

12.08.2003. The driver and the applicant (cleaner) were

travelling from suryapet to Hyderabad. The accident

occurred when a stepney tyre fell from the front vehicle and

the van ran over the said tyre, resulting in the van turning

turtle and the applicant and driver sustained grievous

injuries.

9. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant

was admitted in Kamineni Hospital from 12.08.2003 to

21.08.2003 for fractures sustained by him and for multiple

injuries. It is further submitted that perusal of the record

would establish the fact that injuries are severe in nature, for

which reason, the applicant was given treatment as inpatient

for 9 days. Learned counsel further submitted that perusal of

the record of Kamineni Hospital including the medical JAK, J C.M.A.No.531_2012

datasheet for 9 day period indicates that the applicant

suffered fracture(s) along with other injuries grievous in

nature. That the certificate issued on 12.08.2003 at 4:00

a.m., reflecting the injuries to be simple in nature cannot be

held to be true. It is contended that if injuries are simple in

nature, Kamineni Hospital could not have treated the

applicant as inpatient for 9 days.

10. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and

considered the rival submissions.

11. On 12.08.2003, DCM Van in which the applicant along

with driver were travelling from Suryapet to Hyderabad met

with an accident as the van ran over stepney tyre which fell

from the front vehicle. It is also a fact borne on record that

both the driver and applicant (cleaner) received injuries and

the applicant was taken to Kamineni Hospital, wherein, he

was treated from 12.08.2003 to 21.08.2003 and this is

evident from the Medical certificate dated 21.11.2003, issued

by Kamineni Institute of Medical Sciences, Hospital. In the

medical certificate, it is reflected that the applicant was

admitted to Kamineni Hospital at 12.08.2003 stating that JAK, J C.M.A.No.531_2012

applicant was suffering from left clavicle fracture and left

scapula spine fracture and after the treatment, the applicant

was discharged on 21.08.2003. It is further stated in the

medical certificate that a total expenditure of investigation

stood at Rs.7,308.26/-.

12. Perusal of the admission record and the entire medical

record of the treatment given by the Kamineni Hospital

reflects the fact that the applicant suffered multiple injuries

with chest injury. Treatment given to the applicant for the

each day is reflected in the medical record. On the date of

discharge i.e., on 21.08.2003, in the medical certificate it is

reflected that the patient is comfortable. Though it is

reflected in the outpatient record, dated 12.08.2003, at 4:00

a.m., as the injuries are simple in nature, after investigation

he was admitted as inpatient and it reflects that injuries

sustained by applicant are grievous in nature and the

medical record is before this Court. Advocate/Commissioner

was appointed, in his report, it reflects the statement of

Dr.V.Prashanth, who stated that the injuries are grievous in

nature. The medical record and report of the JAK, J C.M.A.No.531_2012

Advocate/Commissioner reinforce the contention raised by

learned counsel for applicant.

13. Medical certificate is from a reputed institution and is

to be taken as correct until it is disputed. For the injuries

suffered, the applicant was admitted as inpatient from

12.08.2003 to 21.08.2003 and the detailed medical record of

the treatment given on each day from 12.08.2003 to

21.08.2003 reflects that injuries sustained by the applicant

are grievous in nature. The contention raised by learned

counsel for the appellant cannot sustain.

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the scheme

of Workmen's Compensation Act in Golla Rajanna and

Others v. Divisional Manager and Another 1, held as

follows:

"10. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to 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."

(2017) 1 SCC 45 JAK, J C.M.A.No.531_2012

15. For reasons aforesaid, this Court does not find any

infirmity or illegality in the order, dated 20.01.2005, in

W.C.No.9 of 2004 passed by the Commissioner for

Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of

Labour at Nalgonda. No question of law arises for

consideration and on this ground too, the Civil Miscellaneous

Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

16. For reasons aforesaid, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is

devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly

dismissed. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand