CMA/816/2007 of THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs SRI T. BALAIAH AND ANR on 31 December 2021

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

1Sri P. Narasimha, S/o.Sri [Jangaiah, aged ][31 ][years, Occ: Labourer ][Rl,/o.Bollarum,]Medak District-Medak District-2Mi. Ravinder Goud, S/o.Not [known ][to the Appellant, aged Major, Occ: Business]Ryo.H.No. 1 4-2-743, Yakutpura, [Hyderabad.]Ryo.H.No. 1 4-2-743, Yakutpura, [Hyderabad.]

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

RESPONDENTS

I

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]

CIYIL i\ICEL LAI(E()L; [SAP][ PEAL ][n-O]16F27

ANDCIVIL[NTIS][CELt,][ANtrOUS][ APPEAL][ NO.7][91 ][0][F][ 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.actsleadingtothefilingoltheseAppealsarethatrespondent [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. Aggrieved [by ][the ][award ][of ][compensation' ][the ][insurance]is [in ][Appeal before ][this ][Court ][by ][raising ][the ][following]company g"ro'unds

(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.]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.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.]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]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]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.]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.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\]<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.]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']Rs.1299/- [per ]month [in ][the absence ][of ][any ][documentary ][evidence']

(12) The Commissioner [erretl ][in ][awarding ][the ][claim ][i'ithoul ][onr- basis']

/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\:erand the cleaner. In such cases. the owner ol the vehicle shall beresponsible for the injury coused to the third parry. Howe\)et theinsurance company would have to make the payment ofcompensation to the claimdnls under the ll'orknten sCompensdtion ancl lhereafter recover from the ov,ner o/ thevehicle, who has breached the conditions of the policy. as hckl hy,this Court in the case of New Intlia Assurance Co. Ltd., KalapoVs. Pujala Cltenchu Nagaiah tnd others (5 strpra). Therelore.the Appeal ofthe insurqnce coolpqny as agttinst ra.;pondents I to6 is disrttis;'ed......

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

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

SD/-K.SRINIVASA RAOJOINT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//GDSECTION OFFICER

To,1. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and [Assistant Commissioner ][of]Labour at Patancheru, Ranga Reddy District. [(with records)]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 Copies5. One Spare Copyobr \>k"

HIGH COURT

DATED: 3111212021

COMMON JUDGMENTCMA.Nos.816 [and ][797 ][ot ][2007]

DISMISSING THE [BOTH ][APPEALS]WITHOUT COSTS

@>i6

-.,I 1HE [s ][iai.]t/\f8 01 tP??frlt{+4..i:::: ..