HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.M.A.No.145 of 2005 Date : 6-8-2014 Between:
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Kurnool .. Appellant And S. Yella Swamy and another .. Respondents Counsel for appellant : None appeared Counsel for respondent No.1 : None appeared Counsel for respondent No.2 : Sri Nazeer Khan The Court made the following :
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against award dated 17-12-2004 in W.C.No.21/2003(NF) on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Mahabubnagar, whereby he has awarded a sum of Rs.86,231/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by respondent No.1.
At the hearing, there is no representation for the appellant and respondent No.1. I have perused the record.
Respondent No.1 approached the Commissioner claiming Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on the plea that while he was travelling as a labourer for loading and unloading of stones in tractor bearing No.AP-22-T-5210 and trailer bearing No.5211 in connection with the business of respondent No.2 on 1-3-2002, the tractor met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of its driver due to which the trailer turned turtle at Kachiravupally village limits and that he has sustained injuries all over his body. It is his further plea that initially he was admitted in Government Hospital, Wanaparthy and after being in the said hospital for three days as in-patient, he has taken treatment from a private hospital and that on information, the Police registered Crime No.24/2002 under Sections 337 and 338 IPC. Respondent No.1 further pleaded that he was being paid Rs.2500/- per month as salary, excluding batta by respondent No.2 and that as a result of the accident, he has suffered post traumatic shortening of right lower limb with restricted flexion of knee with limp; that he has spent an amount of Rs.30,000/- for his treatment; that he requires further treatment and that he has suffered 100% permanent disability.
Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit admitting the employment of respondent No.1 with him and payment of wages as pleaded by respondent No.1. The appellant filed a counter-affidavit denying the relationship between respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Basing on the respective pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner framed the following issues :
1. Whether the applicant Mr. Yella Swamy was the workman of respondent No.1 on the date of accident i.e., on 1-3-2002 at about 4.00 P.M. and injuries were caused to the applicant by accident arising out of and in the course of employment?
2. Whether the amount of compensation claimed is due or any part of it?
3. Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation?
Respondent No.1 examined himself as AW-1 and examined one Dr. Agur Anand as AW-2, besides marking Exs.A-1 to A-5. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by respondent No.2. The appellant marked Exs.B- 1 and B-2. On Issue No.1, the Commissioner has relied on the stand taken by respondent No.2 in the counter-affidavit in concluding that respondent No.1 was the employee of respondent No.2. The Commissioner has also relied on the evidence of respondent No.1 (AW-1) and AW-2 in coming to the conclusion that the accident as pleaded by respondent No.1 has occurred on 1-3-2002. With regard to Issue No.2, based on the evidence of AW-2, the Commissioner arrived at loss of earning capacity of respondent No.1 at 30%. By taking the age of respondent No.1 as 30 years as per the formula prescribed under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, the Commissioner has arrived at Rs.86,231/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by respondent No.1, payable by the appellant and respondent No.2 jointly and severally. The Commissioner has accordingly awarded the said sum along with interest @ 6% per annum if payment is made within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and @ 18% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the amount if the compensation is not paid within 30 days. On a careful consideration of the evidence on record and the reasons contained in the order of the Commissioner, I do not find any illegality in the award warranting interference of this Court.
For the above mentioned reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 6-8-2014 AM