Telangana High Court

United India Insurance Company Ltd., vs Abdul Hannan , Mehraj Pasha And Another on 26 June, 2025

 THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

     CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.985 OF 2014

JUDGMENT:

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved by

order dated 25.07.2014 passed in W.C.No.187 of 2011 on

the file of Commissioner for Employees' Compensation and

Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Hyderabad (for short

'the Commissioner').

2. Heard Mr. K.Rajendra Prasad, learned Standing

Counsel for the appellant. There is no appearance on

behalf of respondents, in spite of notice being served.

3. Brief facts:

Appellant herein is Insurance Company (opposite

party No.2), respondents herein are applicant and owner

(opposite party No.1) before the Commissioner. Applicant

was a Driver, employed by opposite party No.1 on vehicle

bearing No.GJ 16C 4960. On 22.11.2009, when applicant

was proceeding from Shahin Nagar Highway Hotel to

Hafeez Babanagar, at about 12:30 a.m. (night) and vehicle

JAK, J C.M.A.No.985_2014

reached Highway Hotel, the tyre of the vehicle punctured.

Applicant-Driver and Cleaner were replacing the punctured

tyre, an unknown motor cycle (coming from Pahadishareef)

came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the

applicant and Cleaner. Applicant sustained multiple

injuries, was shifted to Osmania General Hospital for

treatment. A case in Cr.No.482 of 2009 under Section 337

of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') was registered.

3.1 Lorry was insured vide insurance policy bearing

No.050302/31/09/02/00007456, valid from 15.10.2009 to

14.10.2010. Applicant claims, he was being paid wages @

Rs.4,000/- per month. He was shifted from Osmania

General Hospital to Woodlands Hospital for further

treatment, was operated thrice. Applicant claims, because

of injuries sustained, he is unable to squat, sit and walk.

An amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is claimed as compensation

against opposite party Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

3.2 Learned Commissioner, considering the evidence of

AWs.1 to 4 (for applicant) and Exs.A1 to A11 (marked for

applicant), Ex.B1 (for opposite party No.2-Insurance

JAK, J C.M.A.No.985_2014

Company), vide order, dated 25.07.2014, held that opposite

party Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay an

amount of Rs.4,05,506/- with interest @ 12% per annum

from 23.12.2009 till the date of realization, within 30 days

from the date of receipt of the order. Challenging the said

order, opposite party No.2 (Insurance Company) filed the

present appeal.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for appellant-Insurance

Company submitted that the vehicle bearing No.GJ 16C

4960 was not involved in the accident and that an

unknown motor cycle hit the applicant-Driver and Cleaner

of the vehicle is not true. That when vehicle (lorry) is not

involved in the accident, Insurance Company is not liable

to pay the amount. It is further submitted that charge

sheet is not filed, employer-employee relationship is not

established. It is also submitted that Commissioner erred

in considering the employer-employee relationship, as if it

was in existence/force at the time of accident. It is lastly

submitted that vehicle itself is not involved in the accident

and the injuries sustained by applicant are not during the

JAK, J C.M.A.No.985_2014

course of employment, the liability of the Insurance

Company to pay the said amount as directed by the

Commissioner is not proper.

5. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the appellant,

perused the record.

6. On 22.11.2009, the vehicle (lorry), which the

applicant was driving, reached Highway Hotel, the tyre of

vehicle got punctured. Applicant with Cleaner got down

from the vehicle to replace the punctured tyre, while

replacing the tyre, an unknown motor cycle coming from

the opposite direction dashed the applicant and Cleaner.

Applicant sustained injuries, was shifted to Osmania

General Hospital, where he was given treatment for 10 days

(as in-patient). Applicant was operated three times in

Osmania General Hospital and thereafter in Woodlands

Hospital. A case in Crime No.482 of 2009 under Section

337 of IPC was registered.

7. Complaint is lodged with a delay of 10 days,

Commissioner held that the delay was for a bona fide

JAK, J C.M.A.No.985_2014

reason i.e., the complainant (father of the applicant) stated

in the complaint that his son's condition was serious, he

stayed with his son in Hospital. Medical record of Osmania

General Hospital reveals that applicant met with an

accident on 22.11.2009 at about 12:30 a.m., sustained

injuries and was admitted in the Hospital on the same date

at 01:55 a.m. Basing on the medical records,

Commissioner rightly observed that the delay was not

intentional to foist a false case to claim wrongful

compensation.

8. The contention that the applicant is not an employee

of opposite party No.1 cannot be accepted. Commissioner

recorded that in the cross-examination, AW.1 deposed

(accepted) that he was aware of the documents filed,

accepted that he has not filed any document to show that

Abdul Hannan alias Miraz Pasha are one and the same,

accepted that the driving licence is issued in the name of

Abdul Hannan. AW.1 deposed that Cleaner (Basheer Khan)

also sustained injuries in the accident and that he did not

file any proof before the Court/Commissioner to show that

JAK, J C.M.A.No.985_2014

he worked under opposite party No.1. AW.1 denied that he

fell from motor cycle and sustained injuries, while riding.

There was also denial in the cross-examination that

opposite party No.1 i.e., owner of the vehicle (Syed Khasim)

is related to him. Commissioner held that there was no

cross-examination of owner (opposite party No.1) and in

the absence of cross-examination, contentions raised

cannot be considered.

9. AW.3, billing in-charge in the Woodlands Hospital,

was examined on behalf of applicant, she, in her evidence,

deposed that a patient by name Mehraj Pasha Hussain was

admitted as in-patient from 14.02.2013 and discharged on

18.02.2013 and that he paid an amount of Rs.22,000/-

towards hospital charges. Though AW.3 was cross-

examined, nothing could be elicited that she was deposing

falsely on behalf of applicant.

10. AW.4, Orthopaedic Surgeon, was examined, he stated

that Abdul Hannan @ Mehraj Pasha was examined by him

on 20.06.2013 and a disability certificate was given on

assessment, that the applicant suffered permanent and

JAK, J C.M.A.No.985_2014

partial disability at 40%, loss of earning capacity at 100%

(Ex.A6). He further deposed that applicant has non-union

of fracture of right femur for which bone grafting Ilizarov

fixation was applied. He also stated that the applicant has

stiffness of knee with range of movements from 00 to 200,

whereas normal knee joint movement is from 00 to 1400.

11. None were examined on behalf of opposite parties.

Exs.A2 and A3 are discharge summary and follow-up card

of Osmania General Hospital reflecting that applicant was

admitted in the hospital for treatment of closed fracture

shaft femur on 02.11.2009 till 03.12.2009 and that there

was follow-up treatment from 09.09.2011 to 16.09.2011.

Ex.A4 is the discharge summary of Woodlands Hospital,

it reflects that applicant was treated from 14.02.2013 to

18.02.2013 for non-union fracture of shaft femur.

12. With respect to the compensation claimed by

applicant, though applicant claimed wages @ Rs.4,000/-

per month, he did not produce any valid evidence in

support of his claim. Commissioner, on the basis of the

minimum wages fixed by the Government of Andhra

JAK, J C.M.A.No.985_2014

Pradesh in employment of Private Motor Transport vide

G.O.Ms.No.90, 28.09.2007, held basic wage for category of

light vehicle driver to be Rs.4,102/- per month with

variable dearness allowance of Rs.1,075.20 paise per

month (totaling to Rs.5,177.20 paise). Commissioner

restricted the wages to Rs.4,000/- per month as per

Explanation-II of Section 4 of Workmen's Compensation

Act, 1923.

13. Basing on the documents (exhibits marked), the

evidence adduced, Commissioner rightly concluded that

applicant was a Driver, while discharging his duties with

Cleaner, was hit by an unknown bike and sustained

injuries. That he had a valid, effective driving licence at the

time of accident. The physical disability suffered was

assessed at 45% and the loss of earning capacity was

assessed at 100% with respect to the employment i.e., as a

driver when he was injured. Commissioner rightly arrived

at a compensation of Rs.4,03,200/- to be paid to the

applicant for the injuries suffered for one month from the

date of accident till the date of realization.

JAK, J C.M.A.No.985_2014

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

scheme of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, 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."

15. The said principle/view is reiterated by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav and Another v.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and Another 2.

16. This Court does not find any infirmity in the order of

the Commissioner. No question of law, much less a

substantial one, arises for consideration. Civil

Miscellaneous Appeal is devoid of merits, is liable to be

dismissed.

(2017) 1 SCC 45

2023 SCC OnLine SC 1105

JAK, J C.M.A.No.985_2014

17. For reasons aforesaid, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal