IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.111 and 254 OF 2022 Date: 09.03.2026 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.111 OF 2022 Between:

The National Insurance Company Limited … Appellant And SK. Sayeed and another ... Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.254 OF 2022 Between:

SK. Sayeed … Appellant And The National Insurance Company Limited and another ... Respondents

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied by the order dated 08.12.2021 in E.C. No.28 of 2018 passed by the learned Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner for Labour – I at Hyderabad, the opposite party No.2 filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.111 of 2022 and whereas, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.254 of 2022 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. Since the parties involved and the impugned order in both the cases is one and the same, this Court is inclined to dispose of both the cases by way of this common judgment.

3. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties shall be referred to as per their array before the learned Commissioner.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant has filed an application under the provisions of Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- alleging that he was employed by opposite party No.1 as driver on Lorry bearing No. AP 28 TC 9560, which was insured with opposite party No.2. It is further submitted that on 17.03.2018 the applicant in discharge of his duties in pursuance of the instructions of opposite party No.1 was proceeding on the aforesaid lorry from Shameerpet to Hyderabad with the load of sand and when he reached near Forest Guest House situated at the outskirts of Shameerpet at about 2.00 hours, he could not control the lorry and dashed against another lorry bearing No. AP 07TD 4569. In the said accident the applicant alleged to have sustained posterior dislocation fracture of right hip, arm besides other injuries all over the body. The applicant alleged to have been shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for treatment and a case in Crime No.113 of 2018 was registered by Police, Shameerpet for the offence under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant was aged about 34 years and he was being paid wages of Rs.10,000/- per month by his employer as on the date of the accident. Hence, the applicant filed the application seeking compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-. It is submitted that the lorry was insured with opposite party No.2 and the insurance policy was subsisting as on the date of the accident. It is urged by the applicant that the opposite party No.1 being the employer and opposite party No.2 being the insurer of the said lorry, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the applicant. 5. Despite service of notice, opposite party No.1 did not appear before the learned Commissioner, as such he was set exparte. The opposite party No.2 filed counter, wherein it is contended that the applicant should prove that the sand was procured by him on the instructions of opposite paryrt No.1 through legal process after obtaining due permission from the authorities, otherwise, the applicant is barred to seek compensation. The opposite party No.2 denied the, employment of applicant with opposite party No.1, age and income of the applicant, subsistence of insurance policy etc., and finally prayed to dismiss the application.

6. Before the learned Commissioner, the applicant himself examined as AW1 and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked, which are the certified copies of FIR, Charge sheet, MLC, discharge summary, disability certificate, driving license, registration papers, permit, fitness, insurance policy and x-ray films. Whereas, on behalf of the opposite party No.2, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. The learned Commissioner after considering the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, by determining the salary