Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Hyderabad Steel Tubes Pvt. Ltd. vs Aktar Begum And Ors. on 31 August, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1997ACJ1011, 1996(1)ALD913, 1996(1)ALT628
Author: Syed Saadatullah Hussaini
Bench: Syed Saadatullah Hussaini
ORDER
1. This appeal is from the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in A.A.O. No. 833 of 1981 awarding a compensation of Rs. 16,800/- with 12% interest from September 20, 1977, the date of the accident, setting aside the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in W.C. No. 41 of 1978 whereby the claim of the dependents of the deceased workmen was dismissed.
2. The appellant before us is M/s. Hyderabad Steel Tubes Private Limited. The deceased workman, Munceruddin, was employed in the appellant-factory as a Helper on a daily wage of Rs. 5/-. On September 20, 1977 he died. The allegation of the dependants of the deceased workman, respondents 1 to 5, is that Munceruddin died in the course of employment-he was asked to operate the crane and while doing so, he was electrocuted and fell down. When he was taken to Golconda Hospital by the management of the factory, the doctor declared him dead. The body was sent to Osmania Hospital for post-mortem examination. Ex. R-1 is the post-mortem certificate indicating several injuries. The accident was witnessed by S. Gopal, a fitter (A.W. 2).
3. The case pleaded by the company was that the deceased workman was found lying on the floor and when he was taken to the hospital, the doctor declared him dead. The death of the deceased workman did not occur in course of employment much less due to alleged electrocution while working on the crane.
4. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in W.C. No. 41 of 1978, without Considering the crucial document, Ex. R-1, post-mortem mortem certificate, and relying on the evidence of R.W., Krishan Singh Panwar, Supervisor in the 34 appellant-factory, whose testimony was to the effect that he did not ask the deceased to work-on the crane, rejected the claim of the dependants of the deceased workman for compensation. Aggrieved by that order, the dependants of the deceased workman, the respondents herein, preferred A.A.O. No. 833 of 1981 in tills Court which was allowed by a learned single Judge taking the view that the Commissioner had gravely erred in not accepting the evidence of A.W. 2, which was supported by the post-mortem certificate, Ex, R-1. And accordingly a compensation of Rs. 16,800/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the accident was awarded. Assailing that judgment, the present appeal was preferred by the employer - company.
5. Mr. A. Krishna Murthy, learned Counsel for the appellant, contends that the appeal (A.A.O. No. 833 of 1981) itself was misconceived as no substantial question of law had arisen and therefore, the view taken by the learned single Judge must be set aside. Even if it is to be held that the workman died in the course of employment, awarding of interest at 12% per annum from 1977 would result in serious hardship to the appellant-Company and that the proper rate of interest would be 6%. In any event, the learned Counsel says that having regard to the long interval between the date of the accident and the hearing of this appeal, payment of interest should be confined only for a period of ten years.
6. We are not inclined to agree with any of the submissions of the learned Counsel. Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act specifies in what respects appeal is allowed to the High Court against the orders of the Commissioner. The first proviso to sub-section (1) says - "no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal". Could it be said that no substantial question of law had arisen in A.A.O. No. 883 of 1981 decided by the single) Judge ? We are of the definite view that the appeal had thrown open a substantial question of law, namely, whether on the evidence, the conclusion reached by the Commissioner was unreasonable ?
7. The Commissioner, basing on the evidence of Krishan Singh Panwar (R.W. 1) rejected the claim of the legal representatives of the deceased workman. R.W. 1's testimony was to the effect that he did not ask the deceased to work on the crane) and at about 5.00 p.m., on September 20, 1977 when he was on his usual rounds, he saw the deceased - Munceruddin lying on the ground. As against this version, the evidence of A.W. 2, S. Gopal, a Fitter in the very same company, was to the effect that on September 20, 1977 the Supervisor (R.W. 1) directed Munceruddin (deceased) to work on the crane and while working on the crane, Munceruddin died due to electric shock and fell down from a height of 24 feet at a distance of about 3 feet from the place where he (A.W. 2) was working and as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries on the chest and head. On what basis the evidence of direct eve witness like A.W. 2 could be discarded, we fall to comprehend. The evidence of A.W. 2 was corroborated by die post-mortem certificate, Ex. R-1. This document was brushed aside by the Commissioner by merely saying that it showed some injuries. It is impossible to believe the version of the Supervisor (R.W. 1) that without any cause whatsoever the body of Munceruddin was found lying on the floor. It is, therefore, very clear that the Commissioner has misdirected himself totally while considering the defence on record. The relevant aspects which civil ought to have been taken into account were ignored by the Commissioner, namely, the version of A.W. 2 as to the deceased falling from the crane and the injuries found on the body of the deceased as disclosed by the post-mortem certificate, Ex. R. 1. The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence on record is that the death of Munceruddin was the result of fall from the crane in the course of employment. No other conclusion is legally possible in the particular circumstances. The Commissioner's decision, in our considered view, was not only not correct, but was "so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it" (See : Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbri Corporation : 1948 (1) K.B. 223).
The learned single Judge was, therefore, right in setting aside the order of the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation and allowing the appeal awarding compensation on Rs. 16,800/-
9. Coming to the question of interest, we feel there are no circumstances warranting interference with the rate of interest for the period from which it was awarded. The accident happened on September 20, 1977. The interest awarded must be reckoned from that date. Taking into consideration the steep fall in the value of the rupee and the high rate of inflation, the awarding of simple interest at 12% per annum cannot be said to be exhorbitant or unjust in any manner. It is unfortunate that the respondents were deprived of their legitimate right to receive compensation for all these years. The entire amount due shall be paid by the appellant to the respondents within three months from today. The amounts already paid by the appellant company shall be adjusted in the calculation of the total amount payable to the respondents.
10. In the result, affirming the view taken by the learned single Judge, we dismiss the appeal, but on the circumstances of the case, without costs.