Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.NARAYANA REDDY
Samala Gangadhar - Appellant
Versus
Ch,gangaram - Respondent
Decided On : 07-27-04
Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 30 – Service – Labour – Employee - This judgment, according to Law, arises out of a civil miscellaneous appeal, filed by the sole appellant, against rl and R2, under Section 30 of the Act, 1923, questioning the, validity and legality, of the adjudications made by, and set forth in para 2, infra – Held, In the two foregoing Rulings, referred to in Para 37 supra, the Supreme court awarded interests, respectively, at percent 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 W. C. Act, 1923 - 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 - High Court doth hereby adjudicate upon the civil miscellaneous appeal, as under: (I) Modify the orders, of the Commissioner for Workmen s compensation, made in w. C. No, of his file, and set forth in Para 2, supra, as under: (a) Enhance the total compensation awarded thereby, from (b) Award simple interest thereon, at % 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 – Answered accordingly
( 1 ) THIS judgment, according to Law, arises out of a civil miscellaneous appeal, filed by the sole appellant, against rl 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 ) ORDERS dated 31-7-2003, of the commissioner for Workmen s Compensation, nizamabad, made in WC No. 83/2002, 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 WC No. 83 of 2002, on the file of the said Commissioner. R. 1 and R. 2 herein correspond, respectively, to Opposite Party nos. l and 2 therein, being, respectively, the owner and the Insurance Company of the accident vehicle.
( 6 ) THE parties are, hereinafter, referred to, as the applicant, the owner and the insurance Company, lest, so specified.
( 7 ) THE sole applicant filed the said w. C. No. 84 of 2002, before the said commissioner, against the owner and the insurance Company, under Section 22 of the said Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 (W. C. Act, 1923), for recovery of total compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-, with interest thereon, in respect of the injuries, and disabilities, etc. , alleged to have been sustained, by him, on 4-3-2001, around 5. 30 p. m. , near Narendra College on NH 7 Road at Armoor Village shivar, out of, and, in the course of, his employment, as a Driver, on tipper bearing No. AP 25 T 2269 (accident tipper), owned by the owner, and insured- with the Insurance Company, etc. , etc.
( 8 ) IN the said W. C. , the owner of the said accident Tipper, filed a written statement, inter alia, admitting the employment of the applicant under him, in the said accident lorry and his salary, as rs. 6,000/-, per month, by the date of the accident, and the consequences, thereof, etc.
( 9 ) IN the said W. C. , the Insurance company of the said accident lorry, filed a written Statement, inter alia, denying all the material allegations made therein, by the applicant, etc. , and hence, urging for dismissal thereof, etc. , etc.
( 10 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the said Commissioner enquired into the said W. C. No. 83 of 2002, in the process whereof, he, recorded the oral evidence of P. W1 and P. W. 2, and, exhibited the documentary evidence, by way of Exs. Al to A. 7, and, later, after due arguments there-into, finally, adjudicated thereupon, by his now impugned orders, dated 31-7-2003, set forth in Para 2, supra, as under: (A) Awarded total compensation of rs. 84,259/- as against the WC maximum claimed compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-; (B) Directed, the owner and the Insurance company, to pay the foregoing awarded compensation, jointly and severally, etc. , by deposit thereof with the commissioner; and (C) Did not award 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 Para2, supra.
( 12 ) THE owner and the Insurance company 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 Driver under the owner, in respect of the said accident Tipper, bearing No. AP 25 T 2269, within the me
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
