SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(AP) 1475

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
The Divisional Manager, M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Harijana P. Israil & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 588 of 2008
Decided On : 06-07-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri Srininivasa Rao Katakamsetty.
For the Respondents: Sri Koppula Gopal (did not appear).

Headnote:(A) Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Sections 3, 4, and 4-A - Appeal filed challenging the judgment and award dated 16.08.2004 passed in W.C.No.29 of 2002, allowing compensation of Rs.2,36,688/- with interest @12% from the date of the accident - The appeal contended that the loss of earning capacity was wrongly assessed at 100% instead of 40% as per medical assessment - Interest awarded from the date of accident was challenged - The court found that compensation is payable from the date of the accident and the loss of earning capacity can differ from the percentage of physical disability assessed - Courts upheld the Commissioner’s findings based on the evidence, ruling that the appellant failed to provide concrete evidence to suggest the respondent could work despite the disability. (Paras 2-12, 17-60)

(B) Compensation - Assessment - The percentage of loss of earning capacity due to injury could exceed the percentage of assessed physical disability, depending on individual circumstances and employment type. (Paras 19-37)

(C) Interest - The liability for payment of compensation arises on the date of the accident and interest is entitled from this date until payment is made. (Paras 19-60)

Facts of the case:
The appeal by the insurer contested an award for total disability compensation of a cleaner injured during work, emphasizing differing opinions on disability assessment.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld that the assessment of disability and compensation was made appropriately and legally binding conclusions upheld.

Issues: The primary issues included the relationship of employer-employee during the accident, the circumstances of the accident, and the assessment of disability and compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that loss of earning capacity can surpass the assessed physical disability and affirmed the entitlement to interest from the accident date based on statutory provisions.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual basis of the accident and employment (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. affirmation of employment and accident details (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. details of the appeals filed by the parties (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. arguments regarding the assessment of loss of earning capacity (Para 14 , 15 , 20 , 21)
5. legal standards for determining compensation (Para 19 , 22 , 41)
6. overarching principles regarding disability and earning capacity (Para 30 , 31 , 35 , 38)
7. final judgment and directives for compliance (Para 59 , 61 , 62)

JUDGMENT :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

Sri Srinivasa Rao Katakamsetty, learned counsel for the appellant had completed his arguments on 17.06.2022, but Sri Koppula Gopal, the respondent's counsel did not appear even in the revised call. The matter was posted for 20.06.2022 for the arguments of the respondent's counsel. On 20.06.2022 also the respondent's counsel did not appear to argue the matter. The judgment was reserved.

2. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short "WC Act 1923") has been filed by M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager (in short the "Insurance Company"), challenging the judgment and award dated 16.08.2004, passed in W.C.No.29 of 2002, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kurnool (in short the "Commissioner"), by which the application filed by the applicant/1st respondent herein under Section 22 of WC Act 1923 was allowed for payment of compensation of Rs.2,36,688/- with interest @12% per annum on the amount of compensation for the period from 23.11.2000 i.e., the date of accident to the date of actual deposition, also awarding an amount of Rs.5,000/- as costs, and directing the opposite parties No.1 & 2 (the appellant and respondent No.2 herein) holding them jointly and severally liable to pay the amount.

3. The applicant before the Commissioner in W.C.No.29 of 2002 shall, hereinafter be referred to as "respondent No.1" and the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 in the said case shall be referred as the "respondent No.2" and the "appellant" respectively.

4. The 1st respondent was employed as cleaner by the 2nd respondent on its Lorry bearing registration No.ADQ-9697 on monthly wage of Rs.2,500/- along with batta @Rs.1,000/- per month. On 23.11.2000 he was travelling in the said lorry loaded with coal as cleaner along with driver of the lorry and when they reached the temple of Sreerama near Kallur Estate, Kurnool on N.H.7 road at about 7.45 p.m. on 23.11.2000 the lorry stopped the middle of the road due to airlock. Under the instructions of the lorry driver Sri K. Mahewara Babu, the 1st respondent was checking the quantity of the diesel tank. Meanwhile the Tractor and Trailor bearing registration No.AP21U-5773 and 5774 proceeding towards Bellary Chowrastha from Krishna Nagar hit the single bullock cart which was also proceeding towards Bellary chowrastha and passing just by the side of the said standing lorry on the middle of the road. Due to this collision the 1st respondent's left leg was crushed in between the lorry and the bullock cart and that he was immediately shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool for treatment. He incurred an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards medical expenses. He also stated that even after the treatment, the injury received did not heal and that the Doctors advised amputation of the leg up to thigh level. The owner of the tractor denied the liability to pay compensation on the ground that the lorry was stopped in the middle of the road and that he had no insurance for the crime vehicle under any Insurance Company. Thus he did not pay any compensation to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent also claimed that he was aged 23 years as on the date of accident and that he acquired permanent total disability due to the said accident which was in the course of and out of employment as cleaner under the 2nd respondent and claimed Rs.2,00,000/- towards com

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        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

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top