APHC010700052011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3460]
MONDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 88/2011
Between:
The New India Assurance Company Limited, Secunderabad.
...APPELLANT
AND
Kakarla Dasthagiri And Another and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. B PARAMESEWARA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. P ROY REDDY
The Court made the following:
1
2
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
C.M.A No.88 of 2011
JUDGMENT:-
The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 30.06.2005 in W.C.No.49 of 2003 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Cuddapah.
2. The facts leading to filing of the present Appeal are as under:-
The claimant filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with 12% interest stating that he was working as Coolie with Opposite Party No.1 in the Tractor and Tailor bearing No.AP 04 B 4971 and AP 04 B 4972 respectively. The claimant along with another coolie while proceeding from Chennur to Cuddapah with sand load, on 28.07.2001 at about 2.00 p.m., reached near Eenadu paper press at Cuddapah-Kurnool National High Way Road, suddenly buffaloes came across the road and the driver could not control the tractor and it turned turtle. As a result, the claimant fell down from the load and sustained multiple injuries and fracture to his left thigh.
3
3. The claimant was shifted to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Cuddapah and was treated there as in patient and spent more than Rs.80,000/- for his treatment. As the claimant was unable to perform any work and lost his livelihood, he filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with 12% per annum.
4. Opposite Party No.1/owner admitted the employer- employee relationship and stated that he was being paid Rs.120/- per day for loading and unloading Coolie work. The Tractor and Tailer was insured with the Opposite Party No.2 vide policy No.3161120108280 valid from 08.02.2001 to
07.02.2002.
5. Opposite Party No.2/the insurance company filed its counter disputing the claim, the nature of injuries and the liability to pay compensation.
6. On the basis of the pleadings, the Commissioner framed following issues:
"1. Whether the applicant is a workman as per the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 and he met with accident arising out of and in the course of the employment resulting into disability and loss of earning capacity?
4
2. What was the age of the injured applicant at the time of accident?
3. What was the wages paid to the injured applicant at the time of accident?
4.What is the loss of earning capacity suffered and permanent disability percentage faced by the injured applicant?
5. What is the Quantum of compensation payable to the applicant?
5. Who are liable to pay the compensation?
7. In the course of evidence, claimant himself was examined as A.W.1, Dr.J.Nagesh, M.S. Ortho was examined as A.W.2 and one Rakesh Madhukar Babu, working as Junior Assistant in R.T.O. Office, Cuddapah was examined as A.W.3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7 in support of his claim. On behalf of the Respondents, one Muneppa, Administrative Officer, The New India Assurance Company Limited was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.5 were marked.
8. The Commissioner, after taking into consideration the evidence let in, awarded an amount of Rs.88,545/- to be paid by Opposite Parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the insurance company.
5
9. As there was delay of 98 days in filing the appeal, CMA.M.P.No.2630 of 2005 was filed seeking to condone the delay. Since notice was not served to respondent No.2 in the application, this Court on 25.01.2010 passed the following order:
MACMA.No.2630 of 2005
'Two weeks' time is granted for payment of batta in respect of R.2, failing which, the application shall stand dismissed against R.2.'
10. Since the peremptory order was not complied with, the application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed against Respondent No.2, consequently, Appeal against Respondent No.2 stood dismissed.
11. As the appeal against the owner/O.P.No.1/Respondent No.2 stood dismissed for non-compliance of the above quoted peremptory order, the impugned order of the Commissioner making owner/O.P.No.1 "jointly and severally" liable to pay the compensation had attained finality vis-à-vis the owner/O.P.No.1/Respondent No.2. As the "joint and several liability" stood crystallised in view of dismissal of the appeal against O.P.No.1-owner/Respondent No.2, the vicarious liability which was indemnified by the appellant also attained
6
finality. Hence, the present appeal cannot be entertained any further as no favourable order can be passed in favour of appellant as that would lead to inconsistent orders.
12. Therefore, the present Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
13. As there is long time delay from the date of accident and considering the uncertain addresses of claimants, the State Legal Services Authority shall coordinate with the concerned departments and ensure that the compensation is paid to the claimants directly into their Aadhar linked bank account. Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the State Legal Services Authority.
As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: 17.02.2025
KLP
Comments