Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
B. Srikantha Reddy vs K. Mahesh And Anr. on 13 February, 2004
Equivalent citations: I(2005)ACC24, 2006ACJ323, 2004(5)ALD852, 2004(6)ALT408
JUDGMENT M. Narayana Reddy, J.
1. This judgment, accordingly to Law, rises out of a civil Miscellaneous Appeal, filed by the sole appellant, against R1 and R2, 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. Order, dated 20-4-2002, of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Hyderabad, made in WC No. 135 of 2001, of his file.
3. Perused the material papers of the Record.
4. Arguments were heard of the learned Counsel for the sole appellant, and the learned Counsel for the contesting R.1
5. The sole appellant in this civil miscellaneous appeal corresponds to the sole applicant in the said WC No. 135 of 2001, of the file of the said Commissioner. R1 and R2, herein correspond, respectively, to R1 and R.2 therein.
6. The parties are, hereinafter, referred to, as such, as in that WC, lest, so specified.
7. The Sole applicant filed the said WC No. 135 of 2001, before the said Commissioner, against R.1 and R.2, under Section 22 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (Enactment of 1923) for recovery of total compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- in respect of the injuries and disabilities, alleged to have been sustained by him, at ground 1.30 p.m., on 7.6.1999, at LB Nagar Ring road, out of, and in the course of, his employment, as the Cleaner of the lorry bearing No. AP 11 T 975, owned by R.1, and insured with R.2, and that at the relevant time of the accident, the applicant was cleaning the lorry, on the instructions of its driver, and, while the applicant was in the process of actually cleaning the lorry, the driver started the same with a jerk, due to which, the applicant came into contact with electric wires, and received shock, and, fell down from the lorry, and sustained, among other injuries cervical spinal injury, due to which, he was disabled from moving from the bed, and to discharge his duties, as a cleaner, etc., etc., and that he was drawing Rs. 2,000/-per month, as salary, and, batta of Rs. 30/-, per day, and was aged about 19 years, at the relevant time.
8. In that W.C. R.1 being, the owner of the said lorry AP 11 T 975 (accident lorry) filed a written statement, inter alia, admitting the employment of the applicant, under him, as the Cleaner of the said lorry, and that, he was injured, out of, and in the course of, his employment, but, however denied his liability to pay any compensation, because, the accident lorry was duly insured with R.2, and the driver of the lorry himself is having valid driving license, etc., etc.,
9. In that W.C. R.2, being, the Insurance Company of the said accident lorry filed a written statement, inter alia, denying all the material averments in the OP, and putting the applicant, to strict proof thereof, and denying its liability to pay any compensation, whatever, and hence, urging for dismissal of the W.C, as against it, with costs to it etc., etc.
10. Subsequently, the said Commissioner enquired into the said W.C. No. 135 of 2001, in the process whereof, he recorded the oral evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, and, exhibited the documentary evidence. By way of Exs.A1 to A.18, and Exs.R.1 to R.3, and Ex.B1, and, later, after due arguments there into finally, adjudicated thereupon, by her now impugned orders, dated 29-4-2002, set forth in Para 2, supra, as under:
(a) Award total compensation of Rs. 1,73,107/-, as against the total WC claim of Rs. 2,00,000/-
(b) Awarded Advocates fee of Rs. 1,000/- and
(c) Directed R.1 and R.2 to pay to the applicant, jointly and severally, monies covered by Clauses (a) and (b) supra.
11. Aggrieved thereby, and hence, questioning the, validity and legality, thereof, the sole applicant filed the present civil miscellaneous appeal, as set forth a Paras 1 and 2, supra, but, only, insofar as the same did not award to total compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-, as claimed, as well as, because, the same did not awarded interest, and hence. Claiming the same, etc., etc.,
12. R.1 and R.2 did not final any independent CMAs questioning the impugned orders, or any part, or, parts, thereof, or any findings recorded thereby on any aspect, or, aspects.
13. Hence, the impugned orders became, final and binding, on all the concerned, on all the aspects, except, insofar as the same are questioned by the applicant, by way of the present civil miscellaneous appeal.
14. Even otherwise, the foregoing aspects cannot be construed as substantial questions of law, within the scope, meaning and ambit of the unnumbered first proviso of Section 30 of the said Enactment of 1923, so as to warrant either party, to question the wages fixed by the Commissioner, or, the injuries and disabilities sustained by him, etc., etc. Hence, the same became, final and binding, on all the concerned
15. However, the question, as to, whether, the Commissioner failed to construe the disabilities of the applicant, as 100% or, not, it will be a substantial question of Law, as claimed by the applicant.
16. In this Context, the learned Counsel for the sole appellant relied upon five Rulings set forth, hereunder:
(1) The New India Assurance Company Limited Rep by Divisional Manager Hyderabad v. Kotam Apparao . (2) Oriental insurance Company Limited v. Koti Koti Reddy, 2001 ACJ 244. (3) Lingampalli Rajam v. C.M. Morgan's Pit Singareni Collieries Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 350. (4) Janatha Modern Rice Mills v. G. Satyanarayana .
(5) Oasyoketu Ranarai v. Pothinaboina Durgarao and Anr., .
17. In view of the Consistent legal position being postulated by this High Court, from time to time, as postulated in the foregoing Rulings as well as, many other Rulings of the High Court, I am of the opinion, that when the same is examined, vis-a-vis the facts and circumstances covered by the case, on hand, it will ipso facto follow that, a finding has to be recorded, that, the applicant sustained loss of earning capacity at 100% and, hence, the same is hereby recorded accordingly.
18. As set forth, earlier when the said Commissioner, in his impugned orders, arrived at the Compensation at Rs. 1,74,107/-on the basis of loss of earning capacity at 80%ss the, it will come to Rs. 2,17,633 Rupees Two Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty Three only. When the same is computed, on the basis of loss of earning capacity at 100%.
19. However, the said amount of Rs. 2,17,633/- exceeded the maximum claim of Rs. 2,00,000/-. It is urged for the Insurance Company, that, no amount can be awarded beyond the maximum claim made in the W.C. However, the learned Counsel for the applicant vehemently urged, that, the Court has jurisdiction to award more compensation, which is found to be just, even if, it will be more than the maximum claim made in the W.C., because, of the aims and objects of said enactment of 1923, and the same, being, a beneficial legislation.
20. In this context, the learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, , interpreting Sections 168(1) and 169 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 inter alia, postulating that, there is no restriction on the Tribunal, to award Compensation, only, to the Maximum claim made in the O.P., and that, the Tribunal can awarded more compensation, then that, provided such more compensation is found by the Tribunal as Just, etc.,
21. Even though, this Ruling was delivered interpreting the said provisions of Different Enactment, being, the said provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act still notwithstanding, I am of the opinion, that the legal position postulated therein, can be applied to the case, on hand, which arose out of the relevant provisions of the said Enactment of 1923, which is a beneficial piece of legislation, etc.,
22. Hence, the appellant applicant will be entitled to the compensation, arrived at, in Para 18 supra.
23. Against, it is urged by the learned Counsel for the applicant, that even though, the Commissioner is bound to awarded interest under Clause (a) of Sub-section (3) of Section 4-A of the said Enactment of 1923, the Commissioner failed to award the same, and, thereby failed to comply with the statutory provisions. After considering the said provisions of law. I am satisfied, that the applicant will be entitled for interest.
24. As can directly be seen, there from, thereby, the statutory irreducible minimum rate of interest at 12% per annum, has to be awarded. It cannot be reduced under any circumstances. At the best, it can be enhanced provided the circumstances prevailing therein, are proved, which however, are not so proved, in the case, on hand.
25. Hence, the Applicant is entitled to a minimum statutory rate of interest at 2% per annum.
26. The Supreme Court, in (Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi and Ors.), 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 realization. Hence, following the same, I also awarded interest for this period, from the date of the accident, till the actual payment, or realization.
27. In the two foregoing Rulings, the Supreme Court awarded interest, respectively at 6%, 9%, per annum, because, the respective accidents, covered thereby, occurred, much prior to amendment of the said Section 4-A(3)(a) of the said Enactment of 1923, in the year 1995, by Amendment Act 14 of 1995.
28. Hence, the impugned orders have to be corrected, accordingly, and, as is being done hereunder.
29. Hence, the High Court doth hereby adjudicate upon the C.M.A., as under:
I. Modify the now impugned order, set forth in Para 2, supra, as under
(a) Enhance the compensation, awarded thereby, from Rs. 1,74,107/-to Rs. 2,17,633/-; and
(b) Award interest on the total enhanced compensation, at 12% per annum, from the date of the accident, i.e., 7-6-1999, till the actual realization thereof.
II. Not interfered with the foregoing impugned orders, on any other aspect, or aspects; and III. Direct the parties in the C.M.A. to bear their respective costs, incurred herein.