APHC010021882013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3459]

AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 808/2013 Between:

1. M/S.NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, M/S.NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED O/O.CHENNAI. O/O.BRANCH OFFICE: P.K.LAYOUT, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

...APPELLANT AND

1. V NAGARAJU ANR, S/O.CHENGAIAH R/O.PERINDESAM, REGIGUNTA POST, KVB PURAM MANDAL, CHITOOR DISTRICT.

2. C RAMIJI, W/O.C.KHADAR OWNER OF THE MINI, LORRY NO.AP

03 V 5054 R/O.D.NO.7-170 [10], P.V.ROAD, SRIKALAHASTI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Appeal Under Section_____against orders IA NO: 1 OF 2008(CMAMP 624 OF 2008 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased condone the delay of 36 days in filing the appeal against the order dated 18.12.2007 in WC No.18/2005 of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation cum Asst.Commissioner of Labour, Tirupati IA NO: 2 OF 2008(CMAMP 646 OF 2008 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the order dated 18.12.2007 in WC No.18/2005 of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation cum Asst.Commissioner of Labour, Tirupati pending disposal of the appeal before this Hon'ble Court Counsel for the Appellant:

1. V VEERABHADRA CHARY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. T JANARDHAN RAO This Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:

This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short “the Act”) at the instance of the National Insurance Company Limited against the injured/respondent No.1 contending that the judgment and award of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation- cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tirupati, dated 18.12.2007 passed in W.C. Case No.18 of 2005 are not correct.

2. The Commissioner has awarded a sum of Rs.1,18,309/- as compensation, together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the accident to the date of receipt of the order, to the respondent No.1.

3. In the present appeal, it was contended that the claimant had no valid driving licence and failed to adduce evidence to establish that the claimant had no valid licence. In the memo of the appeal, only two substantial questions of law arise for consideration, namely, whether the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act has jurisdiction in the absence of any evidence establishing the employer-employee relationship between the claimant and the 2^nd respondent, and whether the Commissioner committed an error in law in awarding interest from the date of the accident, whereas under Section 4-A(3) (a) of the Act, the Commissioner can award interest only when the employer fails to pay the compensation within one month from the date it fell due.

4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the appeal are that the claimant, respondent No. 1, was employed as a driver in Mini Lorry No. AP-03-V-5054 and was receiving Rs.3,000/- per month as salary while in the employment of respondent No.2. On 22.10.2004, the claimant was driving the aforesaid mini lorry along with respondent No.2 at Pathakalva, Chandragiri, Renigunta. The driver of another lorry going ahead of the mini lorry suddenly applied brakes and stopped the vehicle on the road, and as such, the claimant dashed the lorry on its back side.

5. The claimant-respondent No. 1 tried to avoid the accident but hit the lorry, resulting in fractures and other grievous injuries to him. He was shifted to SVIMS and then to Balaji Orthopaedic and Trauma Hospital, Tirupati, where he underwent surgery on his fractured legs and received treatment for one month. As a result of the accident, he is unable to walk or stand, thereby sustaining permanent disability, and has be