The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.Hyd. v. V. Laxman And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM CMA NO: 1237 OF 2004 Appeal filed Under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act against the order dated 01 .1 I .2003 made in W.c.No.64 of 2003 on the file of the commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad-ll. Betwee n:
The United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, DO lV Church Buildings, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad.
,..APPELLANT/OPPOSITE PAR'|Y NO.2 AND
1. V. Laxman , C/o.V.V.Ramana, Occ: Advocate, Flat no.55, Lingala complex, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.
2. A.Yadaiah, S/o. Laxmaiah, N o,7 -4-1 1 t N G,"rrr.;;:t::"J:,:I;lo""to*t ...RESPONDENT/OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1 CMP. NO: 9382 0F 2004 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of execution of the decree and all further proceedings in WC No.64 of 2003 passed 01.'1 '1 .03 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-ll, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Appellant : SRI E. VENUGOPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM C.M.A.No. L237 of 20o4 ( ( JUDGMEN T:
This Appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the order dated 01.11.2003 in W.C. No. 64 of 2003 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle-ll, R.R. District, mainly on the ground that there is no employer-employee relationship between the respondents.
The claim of the applicant was that he was employed as driver with the respondent - owner on the auto bearing Registration No. AP 24 U 99OZ and while discharging his duty, on 16.04.2003 at about 09.30 a.m., the vehicle met with an accident and he sustained grievous fracture injuries. According to him, he was 25 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs.3,S00/_ per month and Rs.50/- as batta per day.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
The Commissioner, after considering the material on record and the documents - Exs.A I to Ag marked on behalf of the claimant, had found that employer-employee relationship has been established and based on the evidence of p.W.2 and Ex.A6 _ disability certificate, had awarded a sum of Rs. 1,5 1,955/ - by taking the disability @ 4Oo/o. There is hardly any other material for this Court to come to a contra conclusion. in those circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order under Appeal.
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly, dismissed' No costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if anY Pending, shall stand closed. SD/.K.SAILESHI ASSTSTANT REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPY/'
h---- SECTION OFFIGER n and Assistant Commissioner of To, ' U3"??T,Tlffl"J:t:T t-:ilT"% f;?10'
n'u''o
2. One CC to Sri E' Venugopal Reddy' Advocate [OPUC]
3. Two CD CoPies
4. One Spare CoPY CDL gbr *-
HIGH COURT DATED: 0310612021 r4I€ s e oo 2 6 lut2021 ,t, * a pAT * D6:
JUDGMENT
CMA.No.1237 of 2004 DISMISSING THE C.M.A.
NO COSTS.