The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI MD HANEEF FARHAN, REPRESENTING SRI M RAJAMALLA REDOY Counsel for the Respondent No.l: _ _ _ _ Counsel for the RespondentNo.2: I MAAMU VANI The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CTVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1l1l OF 2014 JUDGMENT: This Civil lVliscellaneous Appeal is hled aggrieved by the order darecl lO.ll.2O14 passed in W.C.No.93 ot 2012 (earlier numbered as W.C.No.2Z of 2OI1) on the IiIe of the Commissioncr for Employees' Compensation and Asst. Commissione r of Labour, Nalgonda (for short ,the Commissioner').

2. IJeerrd Mr. I\4 D Haneef Farhan, learned counsel representins Mr. M.Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for thc appcilanLs and Mrs. I.Maamu Vani, learned Stzrnding Cor.rn sel ior r cspondent No.2.

3. Bricl tlrcts: The appellants herein are applicants and respondcnts arc oppositt' partv Nos.l and 2 before the Commissioncr. Applrcants are dependents of the deceased. Deceased u,as drivcr or1 lorrv bcaring No.Ap 16 TW 4S3O uncler cmplo,r ment oI one: p.shashikala (owner, opposite partv 2 JAK, J C.M.) tt'o ll I Mlt No. 1). On 19.06.2O11, the deceased-Driver and the Cleaner of the lorry were proceeding to Rajasthan with a load of coconuts and at about 05:00 a.m., when they reached the limits of P.S. Raila, Bhilwara District on National Highway No.79, another lorry bearing No.RJ O9 GA 1833 was parked negligently without any precautionar5r measures, the deceased-Driver vehicle hit the stationed lorry, he sustained multiple injuries and fractures, died on the spot. A case in Cr.No.1 1O of 201 I under Section 3044 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPCJ at P.S. Raila, was registered. An amount of Rs.8,OO,0OO/- as compensation \['as sought by applicants as compensation against opposite party Nos. I and 2jointly and severallv

3.1 Learned Commissioner, after considering evidence of AW.l, considered Exs.Al to A7 and Ex.Bl, awarded a compensation of Rs.6,2O,l4O/- to be paid to the applicalts rvithin 3O days from the date of receipt of order, failing r.r,hich, interest @ 12% p€r annum was to be paid from

24.O7.2011 till the date of realization. Challengrng the said order, applicants Iiled the present appeal 3 ,IAK,,I C.\1A No l tt I )0la

4. Learned counse[ appearing on beha]f of 'appellants submitted thar anlount of compensation awarded is less and the Commissioner erred in considering the wages of a Heary Vehicle Drivcr as Rs.4,319/- w,ith Variable Dearness Allou,ance (for short q,/DN Ag Rs. 1,74g.25 paise per month (totaling to Rs.6,067.25 paise per month) for calculating the arr,ounr of rvages. It is further submitted that the Commissioncr er-red in not taking the monthly wages of the deceased as Rs. IO.OOO/ per month as claimed and in not au,arding interest trr 2401., per zrnnum. The dispute seems to be q'ith rcgard to tlic quantum of amount. 5- Learnecl Srancling Counsel for respondent No.2 Insurance Comparr-ir sr.rbrnitted that lacts are not in disputc, rhat t he rc \\.as an accident, death occurred and a case \{.as registercci . It is further submitted that though the applicants cl:rirn rhat deceased was drawing wages (d Rs 6,000,/ pcr monrh, they could not produce any documentan cvidcncc ut support of their claim and the Commissioncr- nghti_r' relied upon the G.O. issued by the Gover.menL o1-A.rcll-rra pradesh, *,herein the basic wage for 4 JAK J C.]t .1 .\'o I I I I )011 Heary Vehicle Driver is Rs.4,319/- per month.+ VDA of Rs. 1,748.25 paise per month. It is also submitted that the Commissioner did not err in taking the wages of the deceased-Driver as per the G.O., as the applicants were unable to substantiate their claim of deceased drawing wages r2i Rs.6,OOO/- per month.

5. 1 It is submitted that the contention of applicants that salary/rvages of the deceased must be taken at Rs. l0,OO0/- per month is a farfetched claim. That the applicants were unable to substantiate the claim of wages (a; Rs.6,OOO/- per month in the W.C. itself and the claim for !\'ages .r Rs. 1O,OOO/- per month in the appeal IS hrghl,v exagge rared. lt is further submitted that Commissioner has ar,r,arded lnterest @ l2o/o per €rnnum and the claim for au.'arding interest @ 24o/o per annum is an exaggerated claim. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the insurance policy was valid from O2.O9.2OLO to 01.09.201i a.nd the accident occttrred on 19 .06.2011 during { he validit-r, o[ the insurance policy of the vehicle and that the Criving licence was considered for determining the age of ) JAK, J (-.t,tA.No.tlll 2011 the deceased. It is lastiy submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner and no interlerence is neccssitatecl

6. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the submissions.

7. On 19.06.2011, rhe deceased_Driver, while driving lorry bearing No.AP l6 1'W 4530, met with an accident with another lorn' bearrng No.RJ Og GA 1833, which was parked on rhe roacl sicle, in the limits of p.S. Raila, Bhilwara Districr on l'ratirnal Highit'ay No.79 in the state of Rajasthan. The srarior.rcd lorn was negligently parked without an-\' prccaut ronat--\ mcasures. A case in Cr.No. I 10 of 2011 under Secrion 3044 cf IpC was registered in p.S. Raila. Insurance poiicr o[ the lorrv was va_lid and there is no dispute u-ith rcqar-d Lo thar.

8. The applicants claim a sum of Rs.g,OO,O0O/_ towards compensation arlong \r ith in tcrest (u-, 24o/o per annum. The claim of thc applicarrrs in W_C. .,r,as that the deceased was 6 J,lK. J C.M.Al'io.llll 2011 being paid wages @ Rs.6,OOO/- per month and batta @ Rs. lOO/- per day. This claim was unsubstantiated

9. Learned Commissioner, in his order, dated

10.11.20 14, held that though applicants claimed wages @ Rs.6,OO0/- per month, disputed by Insurance Company, applicants could not proCuce any proof or valid documentary evidence in support of their claim. In the absence ol proof/documentary evidence, Commissioner could not be found fault with, for relying on the G.O. issued by Govcrnment of Andhra Pradesh. The minimum rates of ll'ages \\,ere fixed by Government for employment in Pubtic Motor Transport in the G.O. lrarned Commissioner has taken the basic wage of Heavy Vehicle Driver as per the G.O. to be Rs.4,319 l- per month with VDA of Rs.1,748.25 paise totaling to Rs.6,O67.25 paise per month. This Court does not lind any inlirmity in the order of the Commissioner in taking the wages of the deceased as per G. O. lor the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. ln the absence of proof/valid document bv 7 JIK, J C.l'1.,4.No.11I I 20)4 the applicants, the Commissioner is bound to rely on the G.O. and such a coursc is proper

10. With regard to the age, original driving licence of the deceased is produced, Conrmissioner considered the age of the deceased as per driving licence. Exs.Al to A7 were marked for applicants. trx.Bl is the insurance poticy. AW. 1, wife of thr: deceased, u,as examined as witness. karned Commissioner, aftcr considering the evidence of witness and insurancc policr', arrir,ed at the amount of compensation (a) Rs.6,20, 1 a O/

11. Though it Ls conrcndccl ir, the appeal that Commissioner fell into crrcl tn not considering the wages at Rs.1O,O0O/- per month anci rroL awarding interest @ 24%o per annum, sucir .r mere contention does not render the order of tl'rc Commrssioncr per se illegal and perverse. There is no submrssion as to rvhy the wage is to be considered at Rs. 10,000/ per rlonth and interest @ 24%. No docrrmenrar_r er.idence/proof was produced before Commissioncr cven [or \\'agcs at Rs.6,000/- per month, the contention of u.ages at Rs. iO,0O0/- was not 8 .IAK, J C.i4.ANo.llll 20ll advanced before Commissioner. This Court is not inclined to accede to the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, as the applicants were unable to produce valid documents to support their claim of wages being paid @ Rs. 6,000/- per month. In the absence of arry such evidence, this Court cannot hold that the deceased was being paid wages (f Rs. 10,000/- per month and as far as the interest rate is considered, the interest @ l2Yo per annum awardcd b-v- the Commissioner is appropriate. The Hon'ble Apex Court on the aspect of rate of interest in the case of Oriental Insurance Compang Llmited a, Stbg Georgel has laid dottn the iarv that interest @ l2o/" ts appropriate. This Court does not {-rnd any infirmity in the order of the Commissiqner, no interference is necessitated. I

12. The Hon'bte Apex Court, while dealing with the scheme of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, 1n Golla Raianna and Others u, Diuislonal Manager and anotheP. held as iollou s r (1012) ll s( L ilo t {2017t t scc: +5 9 ,IiK, J (.rlA.\rIIII 2011 " 10. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope o[ the appeal only to substantial questrons ol lau', being a wcifare lcgislati<-.n. Unlortunatcly, the I{igh Court has missed this crr.rcial qucstion of linritcd jurisdiction and has ventured to rc-alrprcciate the evidence and reccrdeci its ou,n lindings on percentage of disability for u,hich also there is no basrs. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not uithin the competenoe of the Iiigir Court unde;- Section 30 of the Act."

13. The said principle/vieu, is reiteraied by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Fulmati Dhtq.mdeu Yadau and. Another v. Neut India Assurcnce Co. Ltd., and Another4,

74. F'or reasons aforesaid, Civrl Misccllaneous lrppeal is devoid of merits, is liable to be riismissccl and is accordingly dismissed. No order a:i [o cost s Miscellaneous applications penclinsl, i{ any, shalt stand closed. r , "'.i lc(t,. i fpE 9L ltot //TRUE COPY// S MANA KRISHNA J INT REGIST TION OFFICER I i To, 1 The Commissioner for Employee's Compensation and AVistant Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda

2. One CC to Sri M Rajamalla Reddy, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to Sri I Maamu Vani, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies /,\ \BK,t'SI HIGH COURT DATED: 13t0612025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.1111 ot 2014 DISMISSING THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS t 1HE STAI' E o(, I u"" 1 $ Fn'q t SPATC