Telangana High Court
CMA/1740/2003 of M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Rongali Suryanarayana on 30 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.1740 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the third opposite party – United India Insurance Co. Ltd., against the orders of the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant,
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDYC.M.A.No.1740 of 2003
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT:
This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the third oppositeparty – United India Insurance Co. Ltd., against the orders of thelearned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, VisakhapatnamSteel Plant, Visakhapatnam, in W.C.No.3/1996 dated 20.10.1997.
2. Heard.
3. The brief facts are as follows:
The applicants, as legal representatives of the deceased, filedclaim petition claiming compensation of Rs.1,16,480/- contending thatthe deceased Prakash was a worker under opposite party No.1 as acleaner on a wages of Rs.40/- a day and he was aged 20 years. Opposite party No.2 is the principal employer and opposite party No.3is the insurance company. On 11.11.1995 the deceased was on dutyof cleaning at C.P.6 area and during that time he fell down and died onthe spot. The first opposite party filed counter contending that theworkers are covered under valid insurance of opposite party No.3. Appropriate counters were filed by the second and third oppositeparties denying the petition allegations.
4. On behalf of the applicants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examinedand Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the opposite parties,O.Ps.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.M1 was marked. On the basis ofthe material on record, the commissioner granted total compensationof Rs.1,16,480/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed bythe insurance company-O.P.No.3.
5. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are anygrounds for allowing the appeal?
6. The main ground of the appellant is that an amount ofRs.18,000/- was paid by the contractor-opposite party No.1 to theapplicants. As such, that amount ought to have been deducted fromout of its liability.
7. Even though the contractor, first opposite party might paidRs.18,000/- as immediate relief, that would not absorb the liability ofthe insurance company to pay that amount. On the other hand, it is forthe first opposite party to claim that amount from the applicants fromout of the compensation awarded to them and to be paid by thepresent appellant and it is not for the present appellant to claim theabove amount, which is very paltry, i.e. Rs.18,000/-.
8. Considering these circumstances, I see no grounds in thisappeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is dismissed. No costs.
24[th] December 2010,Rns
_____________________
P. SWAROOP REDDY, J.