The High Court · 2025

: Sri Kota Sameer Kumar Counsel for the ResPondents : Mr.G.Narender ReddY The Court made the following :JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CIVIL MISCE T.LANEOUS APPEAL No.466 of 2Ol3 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is hled aggrieved by. the orcler dated Oa.O4.2O13 passed iri W.C.No.32 of 20L2 on rhe llle of the Comntrssioncr lor Employees' Compensation ancl Deputl. Commissioner of Labor-rr-ll : T.Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavan : R.T. C. Cross .Roads, Hyderabad (for short ,the Commissioncr').

2. ileard Mr. K.Sameer liumar, learned Standing Counsel for apJlellant- l n surancc Comparry and Mr. G.Narencler Redd1,, lca rrrcd counscl lor- rcsprondt_-nts.

3. On 26.06.20 12, a 1orry bearing No.GJ 12y 8670 srartecl from Gandhidam ol Gujarat St.rte towards Hyderabacl. On iB.()7.2012, rvhen the 1orry reached Gagillapr_rr Village, the cleceased suffured chest pain, stoppcd t he 1orry at Tea Slall, r,r'hile u,alking torvards Tea stall, hc fell on the ground. He u.ers .- \-"*.1\:)rl \! (l i 2 being shifted to Gandhi hospital, Secunderabad, he died on the way to hospital, doctors deciarecl him as brought dead'

4. A case in Crime No.369 of 2Ol2 utnder Section 77 4 of Cr.P.C. was registered in the Police Station o[ Dundigal A claim of Rs.8,00,000/ is made by the applicants as compensation' a monthly wage of Rs.8,000/- is claimed as wages (of the deceased driver). Commissioner after examining AWI ' RW1' considering the documents marked as Exs Al to AB and Ex'Bi ' awarded a total compensation of Rs'6,59'50 1/ - u'ith interest @72o/o per annum frorn- 27 .O7 '20 12 till the date of realization This order of Commissioner clated 08'04'20 13' is under challenge.

5. It is submitted by iearned counsel for lnsurance Company thattheaccidentdidnotoccurduringtheCourseof employment as the incident occurrecl when he got down lrom the lorry and was walking towards the Tea stall' that it cannot be said to be during the course of empioyment' 3

6. It is lurther submitted that there \vas no ,trip sheet, hled to show that the deceased $,as travelling on 1orry from Gujarat to H_r'derzibad and that AW2, vgho was examined as a clea n er did not file any proof. It is also submitted that interest rate of l2ok per annum on the amount of compensation is on the higher side. That the order of learned Commissioner is passecl in a mechanical manner and there is no appiication of mind.

7. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that deceased suffered a chest pzrin u,hile driving the 1orry, when it reached Gagillapur village on I B .O7 .2O 12 the driver stopped the lorn. and when proceeding towards tea stall, due to chest pain, he fell on the ground. That he was taken to Gandhi hospital where hc vr.as declared as brought dead. It is llrther submitted that Crime No.36 9 ol ZOl2 u.as registered under Section 174 ol cr.P,c. in the Police Station ai Dundigal. It is also submitted that the lorry had a valid insurance policy and the deceased drir.er h:rd a valid driving iicense. 4 \ I It is submitted that as per tfre contents of FIR' the

8. deceaseddriversufferedchestpainanddiedduetoheart attack. It is further submitted that the deceased died in the course of employment' That' there being a valid insurance policy, Opposite Party No 2 i e'' Insuralce Compan5r is liablc to pay the compensation awarded and that there is no infirmitv in the order passed by the Commissioner' g. Heard learned counsels' perused the record ancl considered the rival suLrrnissrons

10. The deceased is one late Mr' Anvar Bhai @1 Anwar Jajam @ Khalifa Anvar Bhai' Deceased was a driver on lorry bearing No.GJ 12Y 8670, owned by Opposite Party No 1 ie' ['akhiber] Bhavesh Ayer of Gujarat' he possessed a valid driving license andthelorryhadavalidinsurancepolicyasonthedateo[ accident i.e., l8'O7 '20L2 After ioading the lorry' vehicle starte d from Gandhidam of Gujarat towards Hyderabad and on I8.o7.2o|2,whenthelorryreachedGagillapurvillage,the deceased had chest pain, he s*cfped the 1orry, got dou'n lrom 5 the 1orry for a cup of Tea. While walking towards tea stall, he fell dor,",n. He was shifted to Gandhi Hospital and there he was declared brought dead on la.O7 .2012. A crime is registered in Police Station of Dundigai. 1 1. AW2 is a cleaner, he filed chief afhdavit, stated that they stopped the vehicle u.hen the driver sufferecl chest pain and he lell down while they rvere walking lor a cup of Tea. He further staled that the deceased was shifted to Gandhi hospital and died. It was also stated that they did not hle any,trip sheet,. He also denied that the deceased was never employed with Opposite Party No. I .

12. RW1 u,:rs examined on behalf of Insurance Company. He staLed that the cleceased u.,as not involved in any accident and thar the said vehicle \\.as not involved. He further stated that when the vehicle is not involved in any accident, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify. Ex.B 1 is a copy of Insurance policy. The contention put forward is that since the 6 1 Iorry r,r.,as not involved in any accident, the Insurance Companl' is not liable to PaY

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo ts' Sriniuas Sabata and anotherr, held as follows: . "7. Section 3 of the Act deals with the employer's liability for compensation. Sub section (1) of that section to pa-v provides that the employer shall be liable compensation if "personal injury is caused to a workm^an by accident arising out of and in thc course of his emploJ,.rnent". It was not the case of the employer that thc ,rght io compensation was taken away under sub-section (5J of Section 3 because of the Institution of a suit tn a r:ivil court for damages, tn respect of the injury, against the employer or any olher person. The employer therelore became liabtc to pay the compcnsation as soon as thc a-loresaid personal injury was caused to the workmar by the accident which admittedly arose out of arrd in fhe course of the employnrrent lt is therefore futile to contend that the compensa on did not fall due until after the Commissioneris order dated May 6, 1969 under Section I9' What the section provides is that if any question arises in any proceeding under the Act as to the ability o[ any pcrsot-t tu puy .omp".t1ation or as to the amount or duration o[ thc complnsati.on it shall, in default of agreement, be settlcd by the tlommissioner. There is therefore'nothing to justify the argument that the employer's liability to pay compensation unler Section 3, in respect of the injury, was suspendcd until after the settlemcnt contemplated by Section 19. The appellant was thus liable to pay compensation as soon as ttre aloresaid personal injury was caused to the appellant. and therc is no justthcaLion for the argumen[ to lhc contrary. 8. It was the duty of the appellant, under Section 4 A{1) oi the Act, to pay ihe compensation at the rate provided by as the personal injury was caused to the Section 4 r= respondent. He failed to do so. What is worse, he did not "oo, '1rsze1 r scc zss 7 even make a provisional pavment under sub section (2) of Section 4 for, as has been stated, he went to the extent of taking rhc lalse plcas that the respondent was a casual conLractor and that the accidcnt occurred solely because of his negltgence. Thcn therc is thc further lact that he paid no heed Lo thc respondcnt s personal approach for obtainir-rg the compensation. It will be recalled that the respon(lent was driven to the necessity of making arr applicaiion to the Commissioner for settllng the claim, and even Lhere the appcllant raised a frivolous objection as to the jurisdiction o[ rhe Commissioner artd prevailed on the responclent to file a memorandum of agreement settling the claim for a sum which was so grossly inadequate that it was re,jected by the Commissioner. In these facts and circumstances, we have no doubt that the Commissioner was fulLy justihed in making an order for the payment of interest and the pcnalty.

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court u.hile dealing with the Workmens, Compensation Act, held that the compensation is liable to be paid as soon as the personal injury rvas caused to the workman by the accident rvhich admittedh' arose out of and in the course of employment.

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in param pat Singh through father v. National Insurance Company and another2, dealing with the word 'accident', held as follorvs: "22. However, ther.c are rlecrsions of the English Court as early as o[ the Vear ]903 onrr,.ards stating thaf an unlooked for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designcd sl'rould be consrrued as falling u.ithin the dehnition o[ an ":rccidcnt'' and in Lhc cvent of such ,.untoward,, 2013 (136) FLR 848 .- \.-*! \l \. \ 8 "unexpccted" event resulting in a person:rl injury caused to the workman in the course ol his employment in con eclion with thc trade ancl business of his emplo1'cr, thc same wotrld be governed by the provisions of Section 3 of the Workmen s Coripensatiorr Act. Such a legal principle evolved frorrr timc immemorial got the seal of approval of thls Court and for this purpose we can refer to the celebrated decision in Ritta hr.rr-a".. After refcrring to the decision of thc Hor'r sc of tords in Clover, Clayton & Co l'td v' Ilughcs All ER Rcp 22O (HL)l this Court in Ritta Fa-rnandes IJ969 ACJ 419 (SC)l iclerred to the relcvant passage in the decLsion of the House of tords in paragraph 4, which reads as under: *o.t rnrr', dtes from a pre-existing disease' if "4- Even it " the disease is aggravz.ted or accelerated under the circumstances which can be said to be accider-rtal' his death resuLts from injury by accident This was clezrly laid down by the Houie of ' l,or-ds in Clover, Clalton & Co Lid. u. Hughes where the deceased, whiist tightening a nut a spLner, fell back on his har-rd and Cied A post- mortem examination showed that there was a large "uith aleurism of the aorta, and that death was caused by a rupturc of thc aorta The aneurism was in such aII ad,ranced condition that it might have burst while the man and very slight exertion or strain would have -r. ^sl".p, been sufhcient to bring abortt a rupture l'hc County CourL .iudge t'ound that the dcatl-r *as caused by a strain arising rhe ordinary work of the deceased operating upon a condition of body which was such as to render the strain latai, i:nd held upon ihe authorities that this was an accident within the meaning of the Act His decision was upheld both by the Court of Appeal and the House of.I-ords: No doubt the ordinary accidentl' "said [-ord L,orebum. L.C."l rs associatecl with something external; the bursting ol a boiler, or art explosion in a mine,. for-example' But it iay be merely from lhe malr's own miscalculation' t.ipping and falling. Or it may be due both to "r"h ^. conditions, as if a searnan were to internal arrd iaint in the rigging anci tumble into the sea l think it may also be someliin[ going wrong within Lhe human frame itself, su.h as tne-stiaining of a muscle or th-e breaking of a blood vessel. tf that occurred when he was lifting a weight it would properly be described as an accident So' I think' rupturing art aneurism when tightening a nut with a "pulra.a ,rtry be regarded as al-r accident ' ^erGrnal "of 9 Wlth regard ro Lord NlacNaughren s definition of an accidenl being'al ur.rlooked lor mishap or untoward event which is not expected or designed,it ,,vas said that arr event was unexpected if it was not expected by the man who suffered it, even though every mim of common sense who knew the circumstarces would think rt certain to happen.,, 23- In a recent decision of this Court in Shakuntala Chardraktrnt Shreshti [(2OO7) tl SCC 668 : (2008) I SCC (L&S) 9ar4 : (2006) a ACC 769), the factors to be estabtished to prove that arl accident has taken ptace have been culled out and stated as under in paragraph 26 : "26.ln a case o[ this nature to prove that accident has taken place, factors which rvould have to be established, inter a1ia. are: (1) stress and strain errising during the course of emplovmenL, (2) nature of r:mplovmcnt, (3) injury aggravatcd due to stress and strarn.,, 24. In Malikarjuna G. Hiremath r,. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2009) 13 SCC 405: (2009) s SCC (Civ) 130:(2010) L SCC (Cri) 1034 : (2O10) 2 SCC lL&S) 332 : AIR 2OO9 SC 20191 the principles to aLtract Section 3 of the Workmen,s Compensation Act have becn stated as uncler in paragraph 13: "13. ... '22. There are a Largc number of trnglish and Arnericar-r decisions, some o[ which have been taken note of in ESI Corpn. case [ESI Corpn. v. Francis De Costa, (1996) 6 SCC 1: 1996 SCC (L&S) 13611 in regarrl to essential ingredients for such finding and the tests aLtracting the provisions of Section 3 ol thc Act. Thc principles are: (1) There must be a causal connecrion between the injury and thc accident and the accident and thc work done in the course of emplo) men [. (2) Thc onus is upon the appliczu,rt to shour Lhat it was thc work and thc resulting strain which contributed to or aggrav.rted the inj u n'. (3) If f.e evidence brought on record cstablishes a greater probability which satishes a reasonable man that the work contributed to the r:ausing of thc personal injury, it would be enough for the workman to succeed, but the sime would depend upon the facts of each case., 25 The_ Madhya Court in Sundarbai v. Ordnance Facrory [1976 Lab JC 1163 (Mp)] Lab IC in para LO has culled out tte principles as under: pradesh High ) 10 -' " 10. On a revlew of the authorities' the princ:iplcs insofar as .;";',;,; our purposes T3,ff;f'f'l;#ui"X?.n ,. "", (A) 'Accident t""'ot,tt..tt the rvorkma,-,,. ,lnjury' means cxpcclcd or dcsigncd D] t'L".:tl:1"*,:"'"xT 'in1ur1" are distincL i. cascs where ft .'Ji,: : ; ; ;': I l- ?:Ii"X il5 il' #'11,f"..', ffi il,*i when a w.rkman :1':it"T happenins inremally ro a man ac.idcnl may ur *' l,,nt. and .injury.coincide. Such ancl in such cases 'accloc ',T""',ll"t,li il il' ::i::J;' :-l:;:i j i' = L J" heart and the like whlle tr ! -i^^1 i';''rv srr ffered bv a workman due mainly lC\ PhvstotogL.o' trrJq!J --: unconnected \,\.ith employment, i. the-Progress o[ a clrseas( rnev amounl to an Inlury 'rrising out ot and in lhe workmal was doing al :. r hp \r'ork emplo\Tnent r,,f rhi- inju[ t.ontributed to its the' timc of the ccculrenct occurrence' lDl The connection Det$€ ilir'ii ,,,.''n"d nv striin drd in fact contrlDu ren the injury ancl employment Y!$Ii"v,.";? :.::,?.1,:";l N::1"[ il: :n:t::t* "' -" "vhich d,b{ f 3' " t itlTil.o"o""':'":':::,:5'';ffi",'lti"*."f; i"T'ffi='.lJ:: rhc iniury rs orr Lt)L iPY':-;. - a reasonable man might hold if .,n i ba-lance oI ProbatltLr piobable conclusion is lhat there was a i;"^, i;;.t" ,;:il::i':l.I'. :a",,i::,.*f in lbrahim Mahmm.o ]tlii"" in"'p.,".pf.. apptied in such 'Te;T,":33%;','l;:,"i:l 4221 Lhis Court has scl oo\ - "^r.a ua undcr in PdrugraPn D : ; '1::1?,'iT;::'*:li;3"":il""ii'".fi ':1,;::l'iil;;:ffi both our ot drru r" ' -- il:' ::;;* o r tt' " "- nt "r''"ol ."Ti&l.'l"ttl :XTTJ': J'': work which lhe \\'ot t(maj inciclcnlal to il" 'l hc rvords 'arisirrg out of employ'rnenl' are i^ rncan tnat 'duting the course o[ the r'oir some risk inciden ral :lt"!:H::,',"t:' "'n "'t""t' r r "a r., ih. duties of rt.rc tcruice' which ' unless engaged in the dutv owing to thc master' it is reasonable- to *oik-", would not othe'*'s" havc suffcred" In other r;:e'"tl relationship between the words there must bc ' accirlentandtheemployment.Theexpression.arisingout to the mere nature or il:['ji;1fi.';"i;-i'' "';"";;1;;nrrned / 'believe' . 11 the employment. The expression applies Lo emplo5,Tnent as such-t_o its nature, its conditions, its obligations and its incidcnts. [f by reason of any o[ those lactors Lhe rvorkman is brought within the zonc of spccial danger the injury would be one which anses ,our of employmint,. To put it diflercntly if the accident had occurrcd on account of a risk which is an incident ot the employment, the clarm for compensation must succecd, unlcss o[ course thc workmar has exposed himself to arL added peril by his own imprudent act. In Lancashire and iorkshire Railwav Co. v. Highley [t9t7 AC 352 (HL)I, Lord Summer laid down the following test for determLning q,hether an accident 'drose o tl oI the cmployment . 27. Applying the various principlcs laid clown in the above decisions to the facts of this case, we cal va1idl1. conclude that there was causal connection to the deaih of the deceased with that of his employment as a truck driver_ We cannot Iose sight of the fact that a 45_year old driver meets with his unexpected death, may be due to heart tailure while driving the vehicle from DclhL to a distant place called Nimiaghat. near Jharkhald which is about 1152 krrr away from Delhi, rvould have definitely undcrgone grave strain and stress^ due to such long distance arlving. thc"dcceased being a-professional heavy vehicle driver when undcrtakes the jo6 of such rlriving as his regular vocation it can bc safely held that such constant driving of hcar,5r vehicle , being clependent solely upon his physrctrl and mcntal resJurces ancl endurance, there was ever-],. reason to assume that the vocation ol driving q,as a material conLril)rrtorV lacrlor iI not [he sole cause that accclerate(l hrs Ltnexpcctcd ieat]r Lo occur which in all fairness should be held to be an untoward mishap in his lifespan. Such an ,,untoward mishap,, can therefore be- reasonably described as an "accident,, ,r" i.ur.rg been caused solely attributabte to the nature of cmployment indulged in with his employer which was in the course of such empluyer's rradc or business.

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court considered the r.arious aspects ar'td held as to how ,accident, has to be considered in the course of employment. Further held that u,hen there was ,causal \:-=1 \, '.1 - 12 connection' betrveen the incidenl/injury and the employment as in the present case death of the deceasecl wittr that of his employment as he r.n as a truck driver the same is an accident in the course of employment. 'lhe deceased rvas a professional heavy vehicle driver and undertakes driving as a vocation, it can be safely concluded that constant driving of heavy vehicle whrch takes a toll on physical and mental faculties and endurance is a contributory factor if not the sole cause for the accident ('death'). Such an unexpected death in ai1 fairness can be held as 'untou,ard mishap'and can be held as an accidcnt, in the cou-rse of employment.

17. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, rt rs not disputed that deceased u,as a driver of the lorry, started its journey fiom Gzrndhidam of Gujarat towards Hyderabad and on

18.O7 .2O12, driver suffered chest pain and died. It is also not in dispute that a crime has been registered and in the FIR, it is mentioned that he died due to heart attack. The contention that the vehicle was not involved iri?ny. accident cannot be helcl to 13 be a valid submission in the light of the Hon'ble Apex Court j udgments

18. The other contention pressed into service r.vas with regard to interest rate of l2ok pa au,arded on the compensation, this Court does not find that the interest rate of l2ok pa is on the higher side. No efforts have been made to impress upon this Court as to what was the rate of interest prevailing at the parrticular point of time. The interest rate which is being given in :rll such matters is (@ 1201, pa. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a car.ena of judgments held that interest @ l2o/n pa is valid. The Hon'l:le Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5669 of 2012, Oriental Insurance Cornpang Lirnited. u. Sibg George and Otherss upl-ield the payment of interest @1 l2ok pa.

19. Commissioner. considered the evidence of AW1, RW1, Exs.A I to A8 and the entire record. He arrived at a compensation of R-s.6,59,50 1/, to be paid with interest a4 ArR 2012 SC 3144 14 ) pa. This Court does not find any inhrmity in the order of the Commissioner

20. The Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing rvith the schemc of th.e Workmen's Cornpensation Act in Golla Rajanna and Others v. Divisional Manager and Anothera, held as follor,r,s: - 1O. Urrder the s,;hcmc oi th(l Act, thc Workrncn s Cotnpensalion Commissioner is the lasl auLhoriS on lacts. The P:rrliament has thought it fit to restrict thc scope of '.he appeeil only to substantial questions o[ larv, bclng a \\c]larc legislatron Unfortunately, the Iligh Courl has rnissed Lhrs crucial questron of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to .e appreciate the evidence and recorded its owr-t findttrgs on per-ccntage crf disability for whictr also there is nc basis. The r,'"'hole cxcrctse made by the High Court is not within the competence ot the High Court under Section 30 of thc Act."

27. The said principle enunciated in Golla Rajanna's casc (3 supra) has been reiLerated in a juclgmenl of the Hon'ble Apcx Court in Fulmati Dharmdev Yadav and another v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another s ln the lacts and circumstzrrtces of the casc, no (.iuestion of 1arv, much less a substantial one, arises for consideration. 4 (2017) 1 Scc 4s '2023 ACJ 1986 15

22. Civil X4iscellaneous Appeal is devoid of merits, for the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if an1,, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL TY REGISTRAR TION OFFICER To, 1 The Commissioner for Employee's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner

2. 4 /g Svs h of Labour-ll. One CC to Srr Kota Sameer Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri G.Narender Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies (k i i HIGH COURT DATED:1 610612025 l I I JUDGMENT CMA.No.465 of 2013 oe 1l-lE 51 ,1 I( ? 1 nus zozs r. tO a. ') + D DISMISSING THE CMA (r l1/ I