Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Telangana
  4. /
  5. 2014
  6. /
  7. January

The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd

High Court Of Telangana|06 August, 2014
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.M.A.No.178 of 2005 Date : 6-8-2014 Between:
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Represented by its Manager, Nizamabad .. Appellant And M. Gopal and another ..
Respondents Counsel for appellant : None appeared Counsel for respondents : None appeared The Court made the following :
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against order dated 7-9-2004 in W.C. Case No.434/2003 (NF) on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, whereby he has awarded a sum of Rs.89,712/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by respondent No.1.
At the hearing, there is no representation for the parties.
I have perused the record.
Respondent No.1 approached the Commissioner claiming Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on the plea that on 7-9-2002 at about 4 p.m. while he was driving auto bearing No.AP-25-T-9119 from Banswada to Bichkunda and reached Bichkunda sivar, he had lost control of the auto near a culvert because of which the auto turned turtle and that in the said accident he suffered fracture of his left leg and grievous injuries all over his body. Respondent No.1 further pleaded that immediately after the accident, he was admitted in the Government Civil Hospital, Bichkunda; that thereafter he took treatment with private doctors and incurred an expenditure of Rs.50,000/-; and that on information, the Police, Bichkunda, registered Crime No.81/2002 under Sections 337 IPC. Respondent No.1 further pleaded that he was being paid Rs.5000/- per month as salary, excluding batta of Rs.50/- by respondent No.2 and that after the accident respondent No.2 terminated his employment without paying any compensation.
Respondent No.2 filed a counter affidavit supporting the case of respondent No.1 in all respects.
The appellant has filed a counter-affidavit denying the claim of respondent No.1 and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
Basing on the respective pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner framed the following issues :
1. Whether the applicant is a workman within the meaning of the Act and whether the accident occurred during the course of employment under Opposite Party No.1?
2. If so, to what relief the applicant is entitled and against which of the Opposite Parties?
Respondent No.1 examined himself as PW-1 and examined one Dr. V. Akhilesh, as PW-2, besides marking Exs.A-1 to A-9. No oral evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant. However, Exs.B-1, copy of Insurance Policy, was marked on behalf of the appellant.
Ex.A-1 is a certified copy of FIR; Ex.A-2 is a certified copy of charge sheet; Ex.A-3 is a certified copy of injuries certificate; Ex.A-4 is the Disability certificate; Ex.A-5 is a copy of driving licence; Ex.A-6 is a copy of the Registration Certificate; Ex.A-7 is a copy of the Insurance Policy; Ex.A-8 is the X-Ray film; and Ex.A-9 is the salary certificate. The Commissioner has determined the age of respondent No.1 as 39 years based on Ex.A-5-Driving licence. The Doctor, examined as AW-2, has certified that respondent No.1 suffered 50% permanent partial disability and issued Ex.A-4-Disability certificate. Based on the said evidence, the Commissioner has taken the loss of earning capacity of respondent No.1 at 40% for the purpose of computing the compensation.
Though respondent No.1 has claimed that he was earning Rs.5000/- per month, the Commissioner has taken Rs.2000/- per month as his earnings per month and by applying the prescribed formula, he has arrived at Rs.89,712/- as compensation and passed the award against the appellant as well as respondent No.2 by holding them jointly and severally liable. 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.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, CMAMP No.404 of 2005 is disposed of as infructuous.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 6-8-2014 AM
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd

Court

High Court Of Telangana

JudgmentDate
06 August, 2014
Judges
  • C V Nagarjuna Reddy