Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Nanu vs Ghouse Mohinuddin And Anr. on 23 June, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2006ACJ1885, 2004(5)ALD48, 2004(5)ALT423, [2004(102)FLR1196]
JUDGMENT M. Narayana Reddy, J.
1. This Judgment, according to Law, arises out of a civil miscellaneous appeal, filed by the sole appellant, against R.1 and R.2, under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, questioning the, validity and legality, of the adjudications made by, and set forth in Para 2, infra.
2. Orders, dated 21-11-2001, of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Nizamabad, made in W.C. No. 17 of 2000, of his file.
3. Perused the material papers of the Record.
4. Arguments were heard.
5. The sole appellant in this C.M.A. corresponds, to the sole applicant in the said W.C. No. 17 of 2000, of the file of the said Commissioner, R.1 and R.2 herein correspond, respectively, to Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 therein.
6. The parties are, hereinafter, referred to, as applicant, R.1 and R.2, lest, so specified.
7. The sole applicant filed the said W.C. No. 17 of 2000, against R.1 and R.2, under Section 22 of the said Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, (Enactment of 1923), for recovery of total compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-, with interest thereon, in respect of the personal injuries, alleged to have been sustained by him, on 25-3-1998, near Belial Farm, around 10-00 a.m., out of, and in the course of, his employment, as labourer, in lorry bearing No. APJ-8979 (accident lorry), owned by R.1, and insured with R.2, etc. 8. In the said W.C., R.1, being the owner of the said accident lorry, did not file any Written Statement, and remained ex parte.
9. R.2, being the Insurance Company of the said accident lorry, filed a Written Statement, in that W.C., denying all the material allegations therein, made by the applicant.
10. Subsequently, the said Commissioner enquired into the said W.C. No. 17 of 2000, in the process whereof, he recorded the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, and exhibited the documentary evidence, by way of Exs.A.1 to A.6, and Ex.B-1, and, later, after due arguments there-into, finally, adjudicated thereupon, by his now impugned Orders, dated 21-11-2001, set forth in Para 2, supra, as under:
(a) Awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,52,271, as against the claimed compensation of Rs. 3,00,000;
(b) Directed R.1 and R.2, to pay the foregoing awarded compensation, jointly and severally, etc.; and
(c) Did not allow any interest on the foregoing awarded compensation.
11. Aggrieved thereby, and, hence, questioning the, validity and legality, thereof, but, only, insofar as the same awarded lesser compensation, than what was claimed in the W.C., as well as, as, the same failed to award any interest, and not estimating the disability, at 100%, etc., only, the applicant filed the present C.M.A., as set forth in Para 1, supra, read with Para 2, supra.
12. R.1 and R.2 did not file any independent C.M.As., questioning the foregoing impugned Orders, or, any part, or, parts, thereof, on any aspect, or, aspects.
13. In the foregoing facts and circumstances, and the legal position, prevailing, the findings of the said Commissioner, insofar as the same are not questioned by any of the parties, became final and binding, on all the concerned, including this Court, inter alia, due to efflux of time prescribed to question the same, etc,
14. Hence, the findings of the said Commissioner, that, the applicant is a Workman under R.1, in respect of the said accident lorry, bearing No. APJ-8979, within the meaning of the said Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and that, he sustained the injuries, etc., out of, and during the course of, his employment, as labourer, under R.1, in the said lorry, became final and binding, on all the concerned.
15. Again, similarly, the finding of the said Commissioner, that, R-l and R-2 are liable to pay, jointly and severally, the compensation payable to the applicant, also, became, final and binding, on all the concerned.
16. So, therefore, the only questions, that, remain to be decided in the present C.M.A., will be, whether, the said Commissioner failed to estimate the disability, at 100%, and wrongly failed to award interest, as claimed in the W.C., even though, he is entitled for the same, according to Law, etc.
17. The learned Counsel for the applicant vehemently urged, that, even though, the applicant is entitled for 100% compensation, on the ground of total disablement, within the factual meaning, scope and ambit as also, purview of Clause (1) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the said Enactment of 1923, still, notwithstanding, the Commissioner erroneously and illegally awarded less compensation than that, and that, hence, the same is unsustainable at Fact and Law, and that, hence, the same has to be corrected, as such, to 100% compensation, etc., etc.
18. To substantiate the foregoing version of his, the learned Counsel for the applicant relied upon (7) Rulings, set forth, as under:
(1) Maghar Singh v. Jashwant Singh, , delivered, inter alia, interpreting Section 3(1), 2(1)(e) and (n), 4(1)(b) and 4-A(3), and Schedule IV of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923; (2) United India Insurance Company Limited Nizamabad v. Mekala Adavaiah and Anr., 2001 (6) ALD 497; (3) Oriental Insurance Company Limited Hyderabad v. Koti Koti Reddy and Anr., 2000 (2) ALD 485; (4) Pasupuleti Rama Rao v. Pothiboina Durga Rao and Anr., ;
(5) United India Insurance Company Limited Hyderabad v. Ramulu and Anr., ;
(6) Lingampalli Rajam (died) By L.Rs. v. Colliery Manager, Morgan's Pit Singareni Collieries Company Limited, ; and (7) Rayapati Venkateswara Rao v. Manti Sambasiva Rao and Anr., 2000 (1) ALD 435.
19. The foregoing Rulings, inter alia, interpreted Clause (1) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the said Enactment of 1923, postulating the scope, ambit and purview thereof, inter alia, as to, what is meant by total disablement, as contemplated thereby, vis-a-vis, etc.
20. Also, the learned Counsel for the applicant relied upon Charan Sing v. G. Vittal Reddy, (DB), delivered, inter alia, interpreting Section 4(1) (c) of the said Enactment of 1923, and, inter alia, postulating, that, any qualified Doctor can assess the loss of disability, vis-a-vis, the earning capacity, and that, it is not necessary, that he should be the same Doctor, who treated the injured.
21. The applicant is a labourer in the said accident lorry, by profession. The medical evidence, oral and documentary, proved, that, the applicant sustained functional disability of 65%, and partial permanent disability of 65%, as well as loss of earning capacity of 65%, and that, the applicant cannot work as labourer with that disability, in future. On that basis, the Commissioner arrived at the total compensation payable at Rs. 1,52,271/-.
22. However, when the foregoing material, as to disability, etc., of the applicant, is examined, in the light of the well settled legal position, being postulated by this High Court, from, time to time, uniformly, then, it will, factually and legally, ipso facto, follow, that, a finding has to be recorded, straight away, that, the applicant sustained total disablement, within the meaning of the said Clause (1) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the said Enactment of 1923, and that, hence, he will be entitled to compensation on the. basis of 100% loss of earning capacity.
23. When so done, when the Commissioner arrived at the compensation of Rs. 1,52,271/-, on the basis of disability and loss of earning capacity at 65%, then, for 100%, it comes to Rs. 2,34,263/-.
24. Hence, the applicant will be liable to the foregoing compensation, arrived at, in Para 23, supra.
25. Under Clause (a) of Sub-section (3) of Section 4-A of the said Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, it is mandatory, on the part of the said Commissioner, to award interest, that too, at the statutory minimum rate of 12%, per annum, as can directly be seen there-from. However, the said Commissioner erroneously failed to award interest, or, at that rate etc. Hence, this Court has to award the same.
26. By Amendment Act 14 of 1995, Section 4-A(3)(a) of the said Enactment of 1923, was amended in the year 1995, inter alia, fixing statutorily, the minimum rate of interest, which is irreducible at 12%, per annum.
27. As can directly be seen from that amended provision, after the amendment in 1995, the minimum rate of interest is 12% per annum, which can be enhanced, or, increased, to more than 12% per annum, provided, the facts and circumstances prescribed therein, prevail. Lest, not. The special circumstances, mentioned therein, are not prevailing, in the case, on hand. In any case, minimum of 12%, per annum, rate of interest, cannot be reduced. Hence, the High Court hereby fixes the minimum rate of 12% per annum, interest, in the case, on hand.
28. The Supreme Court, in Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi and Ors., 1997 (6) ALD (SCSN) 6 = 1998 ACJ 1 and Maghar Singh v. Jashwant Singh, , inter alia, interpreting Section 4-A(3)(a) of the said Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, awarded interest, from the date of the accident, till realisation. Also, in Midichada Ramanamma and Ors. v. V. Naga Prathap and Anr., 2003 (1) ALD 594, this High Court, while interpreting the said same provision, awarded interest, from the date of the accident, till actual realization.
29. Hence, following the same, I also award interest for this period, at 12% per annum, from the date of the accident, till the actual payment, or, realisation.
30. In the two foregoing Rulings, the Supreme Court awarded interests, respectively, at 6% and, 9%, per annum, because, the respective accidents, covered thereby, occurred, much prior to the aforesaid amendment of the said Section 4-A(3)(a) of the said Enactment of 1923, in the year 1995.
31. Hence, the impugned Orders set forth in Para 2, supra, have to be modified and corrected, accordingly, as afore-found, and, as is being done, hereunder.
32. Hence, the High Court doth hereby adjudicate upon the civil miscellaneous appeal, as under:
(I) Modify the Orders, dated 21-11-2001, of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Nizamabad, made in W.C. No. 17 of 2000, of his file, and set forth in Para 2, supra, as under:-
(a) Enhance the total compensation awarded thereby, from Rs. 1,52,271/-, to Rs. 2,34,263/-, (Rupees two lakhs thirty four thousand two hundred and sixty three only);
(b) Award simple interest thereon, at 12%, per annum, from the date of accident till actual realization thereof; (II) Not interfered with the foregoing impugned Orders, on any other aspect, or, aspects; and (III) Direct the parties to the CMA, to bear their respective costs, incurred herein.