Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 92 (TS)

United India Insurance Co. v. R. Rajender Reddy

2021-03-31

CHALLA KODANDA RAM

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. The 1st respondent is the claimant before the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation. He filed the claim petition stating that he was a driver on the vehicle bearing No.KA-09-B-2139 belonging to the respondent No.2 herein (respondent No.1 in the claim petition), and that on 01.09.2014, he was on duty as driver on the said vehicle, proceeding from Shamshabad to Gachibowli with milk load, and at about 22:00 hrs (night 10:00 PM), when he reached near Appa Junction, a heavy goods vehicle bearing No.AP-16-TY-4547 took a sudden left side turn on the Outer Ring Road, due to which the 1st respondent lost control over the vehicle and dashed the heavy goods lorry. The 1st respondent further stated that he sustained Grade-II compound both bones right leg M/3rd, fracture and undisplaced left tibia besides other multiple injuries all over the body and he was shifted to Ozone Hospital, Kothapet, Hyderabad and later to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. The 1st respondent stated that he was being paid wages of Rs.8,000/- per month and batta of Rs.100/- per day, and that he suffered the injuries during the course of employment and the vehicle was insured with the appellant insurance company and therefore claimed a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. 2. The Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,61,595/- along with interest at 12% per annum payable from 02.10.2014 till the date of realization. Challenging the same, the United India Insurance Company filed the present appeal. 3. Heard Sri Nisaruddin Ahmed Jeddy, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Nambi Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent claimant. 4. It is a case where there is no dispute with respect to the accident and also the relationship of employer-employee between the insured and the claimant. The 1st respondent is a driver working with the 2nd respondent roadlines which was involved in the accident on 01.09.2014. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the claimant respondent No.1 was not having driving license and further the Doctor AW.2-Dr.G. Subhash Rao was involved in issuing fake certificates without examining the patients and without treating the patients. Various certificates issued by Dr.G. Subhash Rao were consistently rejected by various judicial forums. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the claimant respondent No.1 was not having driving license and further the Doctor AW.2-Dr.G. Subhash Rao was involved in issuing fake certificates without examining the patients and without treating the patients. Various certificates issued by Dr.G. Subhash Rao were consistently rejected by various judicial forums. Further in the cross examination, he accepted that he had not treated the applicant immediately after the accident and he has issued the certificate only based on the Discharge Summary issued by the Gandhi Hospital. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel Sri Nambi Krishna appearing for the respondent would submit that the scope of appeal is limited and this court is required to consider only the substantial question of law and as there is no substantial question of law raised, the appeal does not deserve any consideration. It is further submitted that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the claimant was not having driving license as on the date of accident is incorrect and, as a matter of fact, Ex.A10-copy of driving license was placed on record and the authority was satisfied with the same. It is further contended that merely the certificate was issued by Dr. G. Subhash Rao, the same cannot be a ground for rejecting the certificate. Learned counsel would further submit that the certificate was not rejected by the authority and as a matter of fact the same was considered by the authority and no objection was raised with respect to the certificate. 7. Having considered the respective submissions, so far as the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the claimant was not having the driving license is liable to be rejected as is evident from the record that Ex.A10 driving license was marked and there is no material to support the learned counsel for the appellant that the said driving license was not in force and had expired. 8. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that Dr.G.Subhash Rao evidence is to be eschewed as he being a stock witness in all the cases under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the evidence of AW.2 is required to be analysed, and though some credence is required to be given, but to what extent requires to be examined. 9. 9. In the cross examination by the opposite party No.2, AW-2 had accepted that he had not treated the respondent claimant and further he had also accepted that as per the discharge summary of Gandhi hospital treatment was given to the patient of ORIF to Right leg. He further accepted that at the time of discharge from Gandhi Hospital on 09.09.2014, the patient’s condition was satisfactory. He accepted that the patient came to him on 10.12.2015 and later he issued the disability certificate on 14.12.2015. He denied that such injury was more than one year old, as it was completely healed as such there is no disability of 45% and there is no loss of earning capacity at 80%. 10. In the present case on hand, there is no dispute that the respondent No.1 claimant had suffered injury and he was required to be admitted to the hospital and was required to be treated for ten days and thereafter was discharged from Gandhi Hospital. 11. Considering the same, and as the accident is of the year 2014, and as no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter back to the authority for fresh assessment with regard to the quantum of disability, by considering the disability at 45%, the loss of earning capacity, for the purpose of computing the compensation, can be taken into consideration as 60%. Though the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the same would be unreasonable, this Court is of the opinion that in these kind of matters, quietus is required to be given at the earliest and in the facts of the present case, the same would meet the ends of justice. Further, insofar as ordering to pay the interest at 12% per annum is concerned, the same does not require any interference as it is in line with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company v. Siby George, (2012) 12 SCC 540 , and also Section 4(A)(3) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. 12. Accordingly, taking into consideration of the facts, the appeal is partly-allowed, and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, for recalculating and disbursing the compensation amount by taking into consideration the loss of earning capacity at 60%. The entire exercise shall be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. The entire exercise shall be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.