The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This Civil \{ iscel l..rneor-rs Appeal is hled aglcved bv the order dated 18.05.2012 passed in W.C.No. 1 of 2 I l0 on the file of the Commissioncr ftrr Workmen's Compensatio L and Deputy Commissioner o1' Lari;our, Nizamabad (for short 'the Commissioner').

2. Heard Mr. V.Samba Siva Rao, learned St:i r ling Counsel for appellant-Opposite Partv No.2 and Mr. T. F r hul, learned counsel representing Mr. V.Raghunath, leanrc I cotrnsel for respondents.

3. Appellant is thc insurancc companl', dc.:irsed is the brother of respondent applicant. On 25. 12.2OO9, I -actor driven by the deceased, u,hen reached shivar of Sarangi ,ur Village, a bulfalo came across the road, sudden brakes r.r,crr applied and the driver (deceasecl) lost control of the tractor, re to rvhich, the tractor and troltey Lurned turtle and the decee r ed fell down, ) JAK,J C.M.A.No.172 of 2014 suffered multiple fractures to skul1 and died on the spot. The Nizamabad Rural Police registered Crime No.39 | of 2Ol9 against the driver (tractor bcaring No.AP-25-U-8472 and traller bearing No.AP 25-U-857 1), charge sheet is fr1ed. Applicant claimed a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- trailer are No.55 1302/31109 16300000425 valid from lO.O7.2OO9 to "vith insured vide policy bearing interest. Tractor

09.o7.2010.

4. Commissioner awarded a compensation of Rs'4,44'125/- holding Opposite Party Nos. I and 2 jointly ald severally liable with interest @ I2ok pa.

5. Learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company (Opposite Party No.2 in W.C), submitted that there is no master servant (employer-employee) relationship between Opposite Party No. 1 (owner, Saraswathi Mahila Samajam) and deceased. It is further submitted that deceased was not having a valid driving licence. karned counsel invited the attention of this Court to Clause 7 of Honbie Apex Court's decision in Nortiono.l Insurance Compang Limited a. Sraaran Singh and. L 't4 3 JAK,J C I .A.No.172 of 2014 others 1 and contended that owner of vehicle h Ls not taken reasonable care to find out rvhether the deceasec .r'as having a valid driving licence or not. That no driving licence was adduced to prove the deceased had a driving licerL, e at the time of accident

6. It is submitted that, Commissioner feI1 i tto error in awarding compensation to the applicant. Lea r -red counsel invited the attention of this Court to Secti: r 2 ( 1)(d) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 't: Act, 1923') which defines the term 'dependant', and contenrl rd that elder brother cannot be held to be a dependant. t is further subrnitted that unless established, that aptr ircant is a dependant on the earning of deceased, claim petiri rn cannot be maintained.

7. karned counsel placed reliance on the udgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Cct tpang Ltd., Prakasham District v. R.Sreenu and othersz t(, rontend that ' lzoo+1 : scc zsz ' zozz 101 elo a+o 1ae1 a 4 JAK,I C.M.A.No.172 of 2014 appiicant/claimant cannot be compensated. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment in National Insurance Compang Ltd.., Hgderabad u. Jada Muthgali and others3 and contended that onus lies on the ow'ner of the vehicle to check the documents and drivin g licence of driver before handing the vehicle. That, as thc oq'ner of the vehicle failed in his duty, the Insurance Companv cannot be directed/ mulcted to pay the comPensation. B. Learned counsel for applicant-respondent No'1 (herein) submitted that applicant is eider brother of deceased and deceased was working as a driver with Opposite Party No' 1' u'as paid a monthly salary of Rs. 10,000/-' That on account of the death of his brother, applicant is rendered without financial support as he depended on the earnings of his minor brother' It is further submitted that owner of vehicle M/s' Saraswathi Mahila Sangam engaged the deceased for lifting of waste' that on the fateful day, his brother driving the vehicle, when reached Sarangapur Village, a buffalo came across the road, due to 'zozz (s) aro azo (rs) {: 5 JAK,J ( M.A.No.172 of 2014 application of sudden brakes, tractor and trailer turned turtle, deceased sustained injuries and died on thr spot. Crime bearing No.391 of 2OO9 was registered and char1l sheet hled. It is also submitted that onus lies on the Insuranc : Company to prove that driver had no valid driving licence.

9. It is submitted that Insurance Companr could prove whether the driver was holding a valid driving ald in the absence of such proof, contentions icence or not rf counsel lor Insurance Company cannot be held to be valirl submitted that Commissioner disbelieved th It is further ' version of Insurance Company about employer-employee re I rtionship and held the Insurance Company liable to pay compeir ;ation.

10. Learned counsel for applicant-responden: No. 1 placed reliance on the following judgments:

7. Sho.manna o-nd. another u. Diuision< I Manager, Ortental Insuronce Cornpang Limited and othersa, o (zora) s scc eso I 6 JAK,.I C.M.A.No.172 of 2014 2, Scrdhana Tomar and others u' Ashok Kushwaha and other#, 3, Nationat Ins-urance Compang Ltd'' through its Diuisional Mdnager u' Vinag Ambadas Wahul and others, and

4. National Insurance Compang Ltd-' u' Sarlrr (Smt') and anotherz 1 1. Placing reliance on the judgme nts' it is contended that Workmen's Compensation Act being a welfare legislation' Court can award compensation lt is further contended that deceased was supporting his elder brother frnancially and applicant has noothersol.lrceofincome'hence'hecanbetermeda dependant.

12. On the basis of judgments (supra)' it is contended that variorrs High Courts held Act, 1923' to be a welfare legislation andhaveextendedbenelLtstodependants.I-earnedcounsel placed reliance on the judgment in Sadho,na Tomar s 6 7 2025 LiveLaw (sc) 309 2022 SCC Online Bom 1720 2017 SCC OnLine HP 2692 n 7 JAK,J C I I A.No.172 of 2014 (5 supra) and contended that the term, "represt.r irtivr:,,should be given a wicier interpretation and the Hon,l;le .A1 r.r Oourt had held in the said judgment that it is sufrl r nt for the claimant/applicant to establish his loss of depenr , nc-v ard rhat in the present case, the applicant was able to pr.,,e before the Commissioner as "dependant".

13. Learned counsel relying on the judgment it Shamanna and. another (4 supra), contended that it is for r ),r Irlsurance Company to prove whether driver possessed :r .,alid driving Iicence or not. That for breach of policy conditic ns, pay and recovery principle can be made applicable, but oceds to be substantiated. Learned counsel urged that there. . rc no mcrits in the appeal and is liable to be dismissed. 14 Heard learned counsels, perused the recor I considcred the submissions.

15. Brother of applicant was working as driver )n a tractor owned by M/s Saraswathi Mahila Sangam. Or, 25. l2.2OOg when the tractor (with trolley) reached shivar r:.- Sarangapur I 8 J AK,I C.M.A.No.172 of 2014 Village, a buffalo came across the road On application of sudden brakes, dnver lost control, tractor and trolley turned turtle, driver sustarned grievous injuries and died on the spot' Applicant is elder brother, he claims his younger brother (deceased) earnings u'ere Rs 1 0,000 / - per month and Rs ' 300 / - per day as batta. Applicant claims his younger brother gave the earnings to him for maintenance and to meet necessities at home.

16. A Crime No.39 1 of 2OO9 u'as registered' charge shect is filed. Compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- rvith interest is sought At the time of accid.ent, tractor and trailer u'ere insured and there A separate Premium of ls no disPute with regard to this' Rs.10O/- was paid for legal liabilitl' (WC) to driver (lMT 28), thus covering risk of driver' 17 . Nothing is forthcoming from the order of the CommissionerthatlnsuranceCompanyhastakenstepsto prove that the deceased did not possess a valid driving iicence' Insurance Company did not examine any of the Road transport authority staff on the aspect of licence ln fact RW1 was ,/ (' 9 JAK,J C. \ .A.No.172 ot 2014 examined on behalf of Insurance Company, .: his cross- examination, he deposed that deceased was drir,: ' at the time of accident as per claim. Insurance Company rlrc not adduce an-r' cvidence on employer employee relationship - lmmlsslone r relied on evidence of AW 1 , exhibits A 1 to A.3 , t eld accident occurred during the course and out of employme - r Clause VII of Swaran Singh's case (1 supra) is as follows: "The question as to whether the owner har; -aken reasonable care to find out as to whether the : -iving license produced by the driver, (a fake ()r e or otherrvise), docs not fulfill the requirements of lru, or not will have to be determined in each case."

18. ln the affidavit hled under Order XVIII Ru r 4 of C.P.C belorc the Commissioner, the applicant averred as ollou,s: " 5. That prior to the accident the deceased was I healthy and tas aged,22 years at the time of dr was ltorking Tractor driver under the emplo.' opposite party No.l and was earning Rs. 1O,0: month as sa1ary and Rs.300/- per day as bt Rs.8,000/ to Rs. 1O,0OO/- per month as labour was contributing his entire income ald earnin,S for my maintena,nce and to meet the necessities deceased would have Iived upto the age of 80 y: would have continued his earnings and contrill me, but for the accident the life of the deceased end and my future hopes have been effected. ale zu-rd tth and rent of ) l- per ta and and he to me md the Lrs and tion to s short

5. That on account of death of the deceased I am I tr only subjected to monitory loss but also subjected to loss of x l; i I i I I I I i ! 10 JAK,J C.M.A.No.172 of 2014 iove and affection and I lost my affectionate brother, who would have providc employment, but for the accident the life of the deceased is short end and my futurc hopes have been cffected, as such in all Iam claiming only a sum of Rs.8,00, OOO /'(Rupees Eight Lakhs only) in lumpsum as compcnsation against the Opposite parties, who are the or,r'ner and insurer of the vehicie involved in the accident occurred during the course of employment of opposite part-v No. 1, as such the opposite parties are iointly and sevcrally liable to pay the compensation. I have dem:rndcd several times for payment of compensation but the opposite parties have refused to pay the same."

19. Be that as it may, entire issue rcvolves a-round the question whether eider brother can be heid to be a "dependant", as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, 1923.

20. A near/close reiative of a deceased workman, if u'holly, or, part, dependent on the earnings of a u'orkmen at the time of 1n death, such near/close relative rvhether can be terrned as "dependant" is the question. The fact that applicant is elder brother of the deceased is not denied. It is not in dispute that parents of the deceased are no more and both brothers $'ere living together. It may be true that elder brother is not entirely dependent on the earnings of his younger brother (the deceased), but when both are living together, there is definitely f 11 IAK,J C.\ .A.No.172 of 2014 a contribution from the deceased to the mainten€ nce. in such circumstances, the Commissioner held the elder tr: other to be a dependant and passed the order

21. Question to be dealt with is whether the appl cant fits into the dehnition of dependant as defined under Se(1Lon 2(1)(d) of the Act. Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, 1923, is as follov s "Section 2(1)(d): "dependant" means any rf the follou'ing relatives of a deceased [employee] , nanr ly:-- (i) a widow, a minor flegitimate or adopted] scr , and unmarried [egitrmate or adopted] daughter, or a widowed molher; and (i0 if r,,,hol1v dependent on the earnirrt s of the [employee] at the time of his death, a sor or a daughter who has attained the age of 18 year; and who is infirm; (iii) if wholly or in part dependent on the earni rgs of the [employee] at the time of his death, (a) a widower, (b) a parent other than a widowed mother (c) a minor illegitimate son, an unrr illegitimate daughter or a daughter [legitime illegitimate or adoptedl ii married and a mino widowcd and a n'rinor, (d) a minor brothcr or a unmarried sist: widowed sister if a minor, (e) a widowed daughter-in-law, (f) a minor child of a pre-deceased son, (g) a minor child of a pre-deceased dzLr where no parent of the child is alive, or rrried :e or or if 72 JAK,J C.M.A.No.172 of 2014 ( (h) a paternal grandparent if no parent of the [employee] is alive.l [Explanation.- For the purpose of sub items (f) and (g) ol clause (ii) and sub-clause (iii), references to a son, daughter or child include an adopted son, daughter or child respectively.'

22. The claimant/applicant and deceased \A'ere brothers living together, part of the income of the deceased salary rvill "vages/ be spent for himself and a part contributed to the maintenance of home. This aspect cannot be negatived' If claimant/applicant is partly dependant on the eamings of the tl-re deceased employee, can it be concluded that the ingredients of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, 1923, get fulhlled The contention is that if the brother (applicant) at the time of death is dependent on the earnings of his deceased brother, he u'ould be deprived of the contribution of his younger brother and applicant u'ould fall within the statutory dehnition of dependant That the clatmant/applicant at the relevant time being dependent on the earnings of the deceased is entitled to claim compensation'

23. The fact that the Insurance Company has not put any suggestion nor elicited anything in the evidence that the r1. 13 JAK,.J C I 1.A.No.172 of 2014 amount drag.n as sa1ary s,as entirely being : pent on the cleceased is apparent. The Commissioner exam;r ed AWl and AW2 on behalf of the applicant, PW2 who is ': resident of same village and stated in his affi: ramined is a avit that the applicant is thc sole sur-vivor and dependent on 1l e earnings of the deceased. PW2 q,as cross examined and nothing was elicited by the counsel for Opposite Party N<r 2 (lnsurance Company). On the basis of these facts, it was ct ntended that claimant/applicant fulhlls the ingredients of Se,: ion 2(1)(d) of the Act, 7923 and the applicant hts into tht: delinition of dependant.

24.. On a perusal of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, 1923, which defines dependant, it is apparent that the tr other of the deceased (elder brother) w'ould not frt into th : category of dependant. The Act is clear as to who the depend= nts are.

25. Placing reliauce on a judgment which <:r nsidered the aspect of "legal representative" of deceased under Motor Vehicle Act), it was submitted that elder brothe : would be a legal representative of the deceased and hence, t: : same would J l4 IAK,J C.M,A.No.172 of 2014 (: be applicable under the Act, 1923, as both the legislations are benelicial in natr-rre.

26. This Court has considered the sutrmissions made across the Bar, on a perusal of the entire Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, 1923, it is ciear that word 'dependant' has been given an inclusive definition, it includes such of those persons of the deceased employee who can be termed as dependants, it is onlv such of those persons delined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, 1923, who can be endowed u,ith the beneltts or compensation can be awarded considering them as an applicant(s). In the definition of the word 'dependant', elder brother (of a deceased employee) is not reflected as dependant' When the statute is clear, this Court calnot expand the definition of the word 'dependant'. Any expansion or enlarging the scope of the rn'ord 'dependant'by this Court wouid be an act of encroaching upon the powers of the legislature, which is irnpermissible. 27 . It is left for the wisdom of the legislature as to who is to be included as a dependant. Any tinkering to expald the scope of the defrnition under Section 2(1)(d) would be an act of ){ I I 15 IAK,.J C I 1.A.No.172 of 2014 legislation. Applicant being the elder brother canl ot be termed as dependant. In the facts and circumstances of t[ e case and in vien of the conclusion arrived at by this Co'; -t that elder brother cannot be held to be a dependant, under I ection 2(1)(d) of the Act, the contention put forth is liable to re dismissed. The order of the Commlssioner is liable to be s< r aside and is accordingly set aside. 2a. For reasons aforesaid, Civil Miscellanecr s Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. Miscellaleous applications pending, if any shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- I,.GOWRI SHANKAR I) iPUTY REGISTRAR- --- \ \=_:=,,-' \l $rcrtoru oFFlcER To,

1. The Commissioner for Employees Compensation and of Labour, at Nizamabad.(with records' il any) 2. One CC to Sri V. Sambasiva Rao, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to Sri V. Raghunath, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies FVPSL I )eputy Commisisoner HIGH COURT DATED: 2411012025 JUDGMENT+EffiRff CMA.No.172 of 2014 t rE iTA o c) 2 j JrN 2[2[ l., t DISMISSING CMA WITHOUT COSTS 6 1