The United India Insurance Company Limited v. Sri T. Balaiah And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAO FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI CIVIL MISC EL NEOUS APPEAL o.816 0F 2007 AND CIVIL MISCELLAN EOUS APPEAL No.797 OF 2007 CIVIL M ISCELLAN EOUS APPEAL No.816 0F 200 7 Appeal Under Section 30 of W.C. Act against the order/decree in W'C'No 2 of 2oo4 dated 20.07.2006 0n the file of the court of the Before the commissioner for Workmen'sCompensationandAssistantCommissionerofLabouratPatancheru' Ranag Reddy District.

Between:

TheUnitedlndialnsuranceCompanyLimited'.Rep.byitsSeniorDivisional Mfan"get, D.O.Xl, Tirumala Towers' Malakpet' Hyderabad ...APPELLANT/OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2 AND

1. Sri T. Balaiah, S/o.T. Nagaiah, aged 31 years, Occ: Labourer R'/o Bollarum' Medak District ...RE''.NDENT/APPL'.ANT

2. lr,4r. Ravinder Goud, S/o.Not known to the Appellant, aged Major, Occ: Business Fyo.H.No. 1 4-2-743, Yakutpura, Hyderabad'

(R-2 dismissed for default vide Court Order dated 30'03'2016) ...RESPONDENT/OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1 clvlL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 797 OF 2007 Appeal Under Section 30 of W.C. Act against the order/decree in W C No I of 2004 dated 20.07.2006 0n the file of the court of the Before the commissioner for Workmen,s compensation and Assislant commissioner of Labour at Patancheru, Ranag Reddy District.

Between:

The United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Senior Divisional Manager D.O.Xl, Tirumala Towers, [/'talak Pet, Hyderabad ...PETITIONER ANO Sri P. Narasimha, S/o.Sri Jangaiah, aged 31 years, Occ: Labourer Rl,/o.Bollarum, Medak DistrictMi. Ravinder Goud, S/o.Not known to the Appellant, aged Major, Occ: Business Ryo.H.No. 1 4-2-743, Yakutpura, Hyderabad.

(R-2 dismissed for default vide Court Order dated 30.03.2016J-^ RESPONDENTS

Counsel for the Appellant in both CMA.Nos.816 & 79712007: Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddyforsri E. venugopal Reddy Counsel for the Respondent in both cases No.1: SRI V. ATCHUTA RAM The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT I

THE, HONOURAI}LE SMT. JUSTTCE P' MADHAVI DEVI CIYIL i\I CEL LAI(E()L; SAP PEAL n-O F2 AND CIVIL NTISCELt,ANtrOUS APPEAL NO.791 0F 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT These Appeals are filed by the insurance company against the separate decrees and judgments dt'20 07 2006 passed in W'C No 2 of 1004 arrcl W.C.No.l ol' 2004 on rhe file of the Commissioner for the Workt.tten's Comperrsation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour' l)atanc he l1l 2.Brief.t.actsleadingtothefilingoltheseAppealsarethat respondent No. I in C.M'A No 8l6 ol' 2007 and respondent No l in C.M.A.No.797 ol 2007 are both labourers who were employed by respondent No.2, the owner of lorry bearing No AAT 4256 On 04.03.199s, an accident occurred, in the course of which respondent Nos.

l in both the Appeals, sustained grievous injuries' Accordingly' they filed Workmen's Compensation Cases before the Commissioner for tl.re Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of l-abour. Patanchelu and the Commissioner awarded the compensation o1'tls.74.281/- in W.C'No'2 of 2004 and Fts'l '47 '743/- in W'C No' 1 of 2004.

) (t) The.Iudgment and decree passed by the Conmtissioner Jbr rhe Workmen"t Compensalion and Assistant Cornmissioner o/ Labour' Patcmcheru is contrary to law, weight ofetidence od prohabilities of the cttse. (2.1 7he Comnissionet ought lo hctte ht'ld tlMt tltrr' ts rtrt litbilitr rtt; tfu uppellanr tlhen tha ott'nt'r ttf the tchic'lc /LtiltLl Io qqeut ht/ttt't tltc' Commissiotrcr.

(j) The Commissioner erred in apPreciati,tg the evidence that the injury clid nol result out of any use of the ttehicle and only due to the negligence tnt the part of the other lotY.

(4) The Commissioner erred in appreciating thc ./act thot the risk o/ Iha labourer is not covered. under Ex.B- l . which :lus deposatl by Rll/- L

(5) The Commissioner ought to huve faslened the liability on the o\|ner of the vehicle, as he did nol pay any premium seeking cowroge of thc risk of tha Iabourer being carried in tha vehicle

(6) The Comnissioner erred in appreciating the legal position as decided in v ar ious autho r itativ e i udgme n I s.

(7) The Conmissioner failed to appreciate the .fact that rhe disubiliQ as assessed by the Doctor is nol in accordqnce v'ith tha protisiott'; clf tlw lr.C.Act.

(8) The Comnissionet erretl in lising the incotttt' ttl tlN itliur!l u ll\ l't)9 '

0) 'l'he Connritsionct ouglrt lo 11.ttc ii\ ti\'\!d lht: tpplitLttitttt u\ IhL' tnlttt\ <litl not ho4ten oLl (uu1 i !he.(tttl'!c of cuplrtlntattt ol ol)l)t)\il( pttt l\ (10) The Commissioner ought to hat'e heltl thot there is no entpLt.tac and employer relationship between the injured ancl the ovncr of tlr vehicle when there is no insurable interest.

(lt) The Commissionet erred in fixing the income of the inittrecl crl Rs.1299/- per month in the absence of any documentary evidence' (12) The Commissioner erretl in awarding the claim i'ithoul onr- basis'

C.M.A.No.8l6 & 797 of 2007 /1j) :'lte Com,titsiofier lnd av'arded excessive compensqlion to lhe 1\.\ltitt,L tlt\ \itltttt an) hd\1'.

/l.i) ()tltt't ltt)tt)l.i\ ttill l'L titgeil t tllt lime of lh( l1e{lring d tlt( l'lrc above r:rollnds are conllllot.l in both the Appeals except for the !luLrntui.ll a\Yat'cled to each ol'thc $'orknlan. 3.

At tl.re time of hearing, Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, leamed counsel rept'esenting Sri E. Venugopal Reddy, leamed counsel for the appellant in both the Appeals, submitted that as other issues are ah'eady covered by various decisions of this Court as well as the Apex Court in favour of the workmen, the appellant is mainly arguing on Ground No.5, i.e., where extra premium has not been paid by the owner of the vehicle, the insurance company is not liable' After hearing both the parlies, this Court finds that in similar matter in C.M.A.No.800 of 2005, this Court vlde the Judgement of even date' has held as under:

''6. llat|ing regtt|tl ttt the ri|ul contentions' lhis Courl lintl'; thrtt rha clecisitttt o/ this ('out l in thc case o[ New ltulia Assutance Co. Lut., Kadupa Vs. Puiola Chenchu Nagaiah and olhers (5 suPrLt) is (listinguishable on .facts as in lhal case lhe tleceaset! vltts u cleaner of the tehicle' whereas itt lhe case on hand, the deceqsetl wtts a labourer and his case is clearly covered bv the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in the case of National I sura,tce Company Limited Vs' Jugal Kishore and olhe$ (l supra) as well as the decision of this Court in the cqse of New lndio Ass.tance Co. Lttt., Kadryo Vs' Puialo Chencltu Nagainh trnd others (5 tupral. ,4dmittedly in this cqse' lhe policy dicl nctr inclLrcle rhe risk oJ the labourer and the owner hqd not

{ paid qny extrq prcmium to coyer thc pcrson.\ othrr than the clri\:er and the cleaner. In such cases. the owner ol the vehicle shall be responsible for the injury coused to the third parry. Howe\)et the insurance company would have to make the payment of compensation to the claimdnls under the ll'orknten s Compensdtion ancl lhereafter recover from the ov,ner o/ the vehicle, who has breached the conditions of the policy. as hckl hy, this Court in the case of New Intlia Assurance Co. Ltd., Kalapo Vs. Pujala Cltenchu Nagaiah tnd others (5 strpra). Therelore. the Appeal ofthe insurqnce coolpqny as agttinst ra.;pondents I to 6 is disrttis;'ed......

7. Tlte ( i,,il tllisccllurtt,otr.s ;lltlttrrl is uttrtLlittgll disntisst,d. .\io ordet a; to co:tt 4, Since the lacts and circumstances in these cases arc also sirnilar to that of the above case i.e. C.M.A.No.800 ol 2005 and tbr rhe said reasons therein, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals liled by the insurance company are dismissed, N*o costs 5.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in these CMAs shall also stand dismissed.

SD/-K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// GD \ To, SECTION OFFICER

1. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour at Patancheru, Ranga Reddy District. (with records)

2. One CC to Sri E. Venugopal Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to Sri V. Atchuta Ram, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD Copies

5. One Spare Copy obr \>k"

HIGH COURT DATED: 3111212021 -.,I 1HE s iai.

t /\ 8 01 tP??frlt f {+ 4.

::: ..

.i:

COMMON JUDGMENT CMA.Nos.816 and 797 ot 2007 DISMISSING THE BOTH APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS @>i6