THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1052 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by order dated 11.06.2014 passed in W.C.No.122 of 2012 on the file of the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I : T.Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavanam : RTC Cross Roads : Hyderabad (for short ‘the Commissioner’). This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by Insurance Company.

2. Heard Ms. T.Padmaja, learned amicus for appellant- Insurance Company (as there was no representation, a young budding lawyer is appointed as amicus to assist the Court as matter pertains to 2014) and Mr. P.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondents.

3. One Mr. Bheema (deceased) was working as a helper on a bore well lorry bearing No.AP 29BH 0812, on monthly wages with Opposite Party No.1 (Alla Krishna Reddy), the owner. On 20.02.2012, while the deceased was on duty as helper, he died due to electric shock on the spot. Applicants (wife and 2 minor children) claim that accident occurred during the course and out of employment and as on the date of death, the insurance policy of Opposite Party No.2-Reliance General Insurance Company Limited was in existence. Applicants claimed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. Crime No.17 of 2012 came to be registered in the Police Station of Ramannapet of Nalgonda District under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Commissioner considered the submissions, examined witnesses AW1 for applicants, RW1 for Insurance Company, Exs.A1 to A8 marked for applicants, Ex.B1 for Insurance Policy, arrived at a compensation of Rs.4,85,769/- with interest @12% per annum from 22.03.2012 till the date of realization to be paid by Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. This order of the Commissioner dated 11.06.2014 in W.C.No.122 of 2012 is under challenge.

4. Learned amicus appearing for Insurance Company submits that the compensation awarded is excess. It is further submitted that the basic wage of helper is less and the Commissioner erred in taking the basic wage of helper at Rs.2,645/- per month and that in addition to the basic wage, VDA was added. It is also submitted that total wages of Rs.4,456.25 paise per month considered is in excess, hence, the compensation granted is more. Learned counsel submitted that granting of interest is contrary to the principle laid down in P.J. Narayan v. Union of India and others, (2004) ACJ 452 and Union India Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Nagarathna and others2

5. Learned counsel for respondents/applicants submitted that Commissioner considered Exs.A1, A2 and A4 and held that the deceased was employed as a worker on the bore well lorry. It is further submitted that the deposition of A.W.1, in claim petition and chief affidavit was also considered. It is submitted that Commissioner after considering the exhibits held that the deceased met with an accident and died of electric of electric shock. It is also submitted that Commissioner relied on Exs.A3 and A5 to conclude that owner of the vehicle was one Alla Krishna Reddy.

2 (2004) ACJ 478

6. It is submitted that applicants claimed that deceased was being paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month by Opposite Party No.1 and Commissioner erred in not considering the wages @ Rs.5,000/- per month. It is further submitted that interest @12% per annum awarded by Commissioner, is in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court judgments, in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata and another, (1976) 1 SCC 289, Kerala State Electricity Board & Another v. Valsala K. & Another, (1999) 8 SCC 254 Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Siby George and others, AIR 2012 SC 3144

7. Heard learned counsels, perused the record, considered the submissions.

8. Deceased was an employee (helper) under the employment of Opposite Party No.1, on bore well lorry bearing No.AP 29BH 0812. Ex.A5 is a copy of certificate of registration of the vehicle which was a Rig Mounted Heavy Motor Vehicle in the name of

one Alla Krishna R