The High Court · 2025

2. The Manager, Shriram General Insu. Co.Ltd.,, Sai Dath Apartments, 4th Floor, Skeet No.6, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad 20 ...Appellants/Applicants ...Respondents/Opp parties Counsel for the Appellants: SRI CHANDRAIAH SOMAVARAPU Counsel for the Respondents: ____ The Court made the following: JUDGMENT o THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAT JUKANTI CfVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.69 1 )F 2015 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by order, dated 28.0E.2015, ir W.C.No.103 of 20 i 3 passed by the Commissioner for Employec; Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-lV: T.lr jaiah K:rrmika Samkshema Bhavanam, Hyderabad, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is file cl

2. In spite of notice being served, no represer lttion on behalf of respondents. CNIA is of the yeerr 2015, thr: Court cannot indulge in granting further timc and proceeds rc dispose of the matter on merits.

3. Heard Mr. S. Chandraiah, learned counsel [ ,r appellants.

4. The deceasecl worked as a driver, on Eiclr :r Van bearing No.AP 29V 1607, under the employment of the t. opposite party (owner). On 28.07.2O 13, on instructions of ori rer, the driver with vehicle was proceeding from Sathupally r r Hyderabad to fetch bananas. At about 5:OO a.m., on 29.07.2 )13, q,hen the Van reached outskirts of Kattangur Village on ) H-65 met with an accident. Driver sustained injuries and died n spot. A case - J,1K, J 2 in Crime No.117 of 2Ol3 under Sections 3O4A and 279 olIpC was registered in Kattangur Police Station.

5. Applicants claimed that deceased was earning a monthly wage of Rs.10,OO0/- and batta ol Rs.2O0/- per day. Vehicle has a valid insurance policy valid from 26.12.2012 to

25.12.2013. Applicants claimed an amount of Rs.9,0O,OO0/- as compensation. Commissioner examined vvitness AWI (on behalf of applicants), marked Exs.Al to A 10 and Ex.B 1 (on behalf of lnsurance company). Commissioner having consiclered the factual matrix of the case, a'"varded a comperrsation of Rs.7,16,a92 l- with interest(@ l2"k per annum from 30.08.2013 till the date of reafization (r.r ithin 30 days from the date of receipt of the order). Chalienging the saici order, appellants/applicants filed the present appeal.

6. Learned counsel for appellants/applicants submitted that deceased was aged 28 years (at the time of accident), that the Commissioner erred in considering the age as 29 years for calculating the compensation amount. Learned counsel invited attention of this Court to the schedule of the compensation to be awarded, the multiplication factor to be taken, as per Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, 'the Act') If i o 3 arrd contended that the age of the deceased t.'., driver was 28 years, the multiplying factor to be applied is I t 1.79 and not

209.92, as tal<en h1' Commissioner. 7 . Learned counsel submitted that appellants i rpplicants are entitled for interest from one month of the dat r of death (of deceased), that inr:ident occurred on 28129.OT .2A',3. It is further submitted that interest amount has to be pajd fro n 3O.0g.2013. But, amount u,as not paid from 30.08.2013. It is lso submitted that compensation amount of Rs.8, 1O,225/- u.er clepositcd on 29 03.2016. It

8. is subrnitted that amount depos i cd if split, Rs.7., 13,964/- is the amount of compensar on awzrrdeci, Rs.l,42B/ is stamp fee and Rs. 1,500 is a lvocate,s fee. The balance amount is interest portion, which ir Rs.93,3OO/-. Learned counsel contended that if interest portir,. is calculated from 30.08.20 13, it wouid be much higher than F: 93,300/ .

9. Heard iearned counsel, perused the recorcl z nd considered the submissions.

10. Accident occurred on 28/29.07.2013 on ti 3 outskirts of Kattangur Village on NH-65 and the drivcr sus inecl injuries, \ 4 died on spot. A case in Crime No. 717 of 20 13 under Section 304(a) and 279 of IPC was registered in Kattangur Police Station. Insurance policy ts ln operation during the time of accident. AW 1, wife of the deceased, was examined. She filed copy of driving license of the deceased. When she was questioned about employer - employee relationship, she stated that her husbald was employed under the l"t opposite party. She accepted that the date of birth of her husband is 30.O5.1984. She accepted that no legal heir certificate is filed. I 1. Ex.AB is copy of the driving license of deceased. Ex.A6 is the registration certificate of tricher Van (registered on the name of l"t opposite party). Driving license is vzrlid up to 06.09.2015. There is no contra evidence or any documents filed by opposite party No.2 (lnsurance Compan-y). Vehicle had pollution under control certificate and fitness certificate. 12 . Regarding the multiplying factor considered by Commissioner, with respect to age, it is properly considered by Commissioner, Commissioner has taken the age as leflected in the driving license of the deceased. 'lhere calr be no dispute r.r'ith regard to the age and multiplf ing factor applied by the Corrrmissioner, as there was no other contra eviCence brought i I ! ! { t ,/ n 5 on record to establish that the age of the deceas:d is 2g vears. This Court is not inclined to accede to the subrt ssion made by learned counsel for appellants / applicants with respect to age artd the multiplving factor. This Court does nol . rd :rny error in the multiplying factor adopted and the age of <1,_, reased adopted for awarding compensation. 13 With regard to interest part payable on tlt,r compensation, it is observed from the order that compensill i )n awarded is Rs.7,16,892/ with interest 12% per annum, from 30.08.20 .l3. In other words, the Commissionc . was right in awarding the interest from one month from the di te of accident.

14.. As per law laid down by the Hon,ble Aper Court pratap Narain Singh Deo u. Sriniucs Sabqta and an<thert, Vakala. u. Kerala State Electricitg Boardz and Orter tal Insurance Co. Ltd., a. Sibg George & Ors.,3, the rate c I interest to be awarded on the compensation under the Act is . om one month from the date of incident/ accident. There is - r error rn thc award of compensation by Commissioner. '(1976) I scc 289 t l to,ruy 8 scc :s+ t zo r:t t: ) scc :.ro 6

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pratap Narain Singh Deo (l supra), Valsala (2 supra), and Siby George (3 supra) held that interest is to be paid from one month from the date of accident. Accordingly, in the present case, if amount of Rs.93,3OO/- is considered as the amount paid towards interest, it is less, compared to the actual amount of interest to be awarded by the Commissioner. Commissioner's order is dated

28.08.2015. Even prior to the date of the order of Commissioner, Apex Court in the cases of Pratap Nara,in Singh Deo (1 supra) and Valsala (2 supra) has Iaid down the law that the compensation on death or injury of a workman has to be paid immediately.

16.' As far as inLerest portion is concerned, the I{onble Apex Court in Sibg George's case (3 supra) laid dourr the law that interest is payable from one month from the date of the accident. The jr-rdgment of Slby George (3 supra) is of the year 2012.

17. It is submitted that the date of accident is 29.07.2013 anct the interest as per the law laid down by Honble Apex Court should be paid from 29.08.2013 till the date of deposit i.e., from

29.O8.2OI3 up to 29.03.2016 i : .. I I JA{. J 7

18. An amount of Rs.7,13,694/- was au,arded as compensation. It is not in dispute that Rs. tl lO ,225 I was deposited on 29.03.2016. [n other words, i n amount of Rs.93,30O/- was p.rid in addition to the amol r t au,ardcd as compensation. F'or the purposes of calculatin 1 the balance amount pay'able as interest in accordance with tht lau, laid down by the Apex Court, thc arnount deposited is beinE considered by this Court

19. Learned cottnsel contended that amount ,f Rs.93.300/ paid torvards interest is lcss. But, it is observe,i that no figure as to holr, much q'ould be the interest alnourr, if ca-lculated @ 12% per annum, on the au,arded compensatior amount, from

29.O8.20t3 t1tl 29.O3.20t6, IS placed before tt r ; Court. On a simple calculation, amount of interest pzr able on the compensation arrvarded i.e., Rs.7,13,694f - corne:; to Rs.85,643/- per year @ 12 % per annum. Interest to be paid s for two years seven months starting aftcr one month fro - the datc of accident, as per the law laid down by Honble Ap,: I Court.

20. The total amount payable as interest r ould come to Rs.2,21,2a4/ of u,hich Rs.93,300/ is alreadr paid. Balance to be paid is Rs.7,27,94t t amount of Rs.1,27,!) t4 /- is directed I ! i t i 7 I 8 to be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The amount has to be paid to the applicants (in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sibg George's ccse (3 supra) (paragraph No.8), as far as interest is concerned) 21 . It is made clear that this Court has not disturbed any findings of the Commissioner in respect of the award of compensation amount that includes an amount of Rs.93,300/ which is considered by this Court to arrive at the balance amount to be paid i.e., the interest amount payable for two years and seven months (one month from the date of the accident).

22. Be that as it may, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the scheme of the Act in Golla Rajanna and Others u. Divisional Manager and Anothera, held as follows: '10. Under tlre scheme of the Act, the Workmen's Compensatron Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fil to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substanLial questions oI lau,, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the Hrgh Courr has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdrction and has ventured to re appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findrngs on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis. Thc whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act.'

23. The same view/principle is reiterated by the Honble Apex Court in Fulmo,ti Dhra.tnd.ev Yadant and another v. Neu Ind.io. ' (2017) l scc 45 & 9 Assura.nce Co. Ltd. end anotherS. In 1t e lacts and circumstalces of the case, no question of 1au. much less a substantial one, ariscs for consideration. 24, The ordcr of the Commissioner is modifiecl t ) the extent of interest. Needless to state that the appellants / tpplicants are permitted to make a representation to the Insu..:tce Company along with a cop)- ol this judgment and also tr the office of Commissioner ol Workmen Compensation \ct, in part modif-rcation ol thc order, in case the Insurance )ompan_v does not come fonr arcl to pay the amount as directerl Parties are at liberty to lile appropriate petition before the C: amissioner in accordance q.ith lau and seek the relief.

25.. For reasons aforesaid, the Civil Miscellarr ous Appcal IS party allowed. No order as to costs Miscellaneous applications pending, if an.,, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- K SHYLESHI JOINT REGISTRAR /l\.S, SECTION OFFICER To, c,

1. The Commissioner for Workmen,s Compensa:i rn and Assistant commissioner of Labour - circre rv, T.Anjaiah Karmika iamkshema Bhavan. _ lTC X_Roads, Hyderabad. (with records, ii any) 2. One CC to Sri Chandraiah Somavarapu. nOvo&te [Optj ]l 3. Two CD Copies K /PSL affiTtilEfu..;=*.ra-d I t t l,i )o i '-r. \: t THE S T4 0 { ri8 2026 z * HIGH COURT DATED: 2010612025 ORDER CMA.No.691 ot 2015 PARTLY ALLOWNG THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS )Lol