The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: Ms. J. Naga Sudha (Amicus) Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Sri Y. Nagaiah Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S. Mohd Abdul Kareem Khan rep. Sri Mahboob Hussain The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT 'a.taa=.. '1? THE HON'BLE SHRI WSTICE ANIL KIMTJ T JUKANTI CTVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.S9tl of 2Ol4 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the order dated 2A.O9.2O13 passed in W.C.No. 125 of 2Ol2 on the frle of the Cor-r nissioner for Employees' Compensation and Assistant Co r missioner of Labour-lV : T.Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavanam : Hyderabad (for short 'the CommissionerJ this civil miscellaneous appeal is trled by applicants.

2. Heard Ms. J.Naga Sudha, learned amiq)s br appellants and Mr. S.Mohd. Abdul Kareem Khan, lel rred counsel representing Mr. Mahboob Hussain, learnerl counsel lor rcspondenls.

3. On 20.05.2008, one Mr. Praveen Kumar vas travelling along u,ith his relatives in an auto trolley beari rg No.AP 23U 6982 from Banala Kondapur Village, Chegunta \ andal, Mcdak District, proceeding to Tulajapur Village of Domel onda Mandal, Nizamabad District, with a tree log (ippa tree . When auto 2 JAK,.' C.M-A.No.598 of 2014 trolley reached Pothareddypet village out skirts at l l:30 hours, driver (P. Santosh), drove the trolley in rash and negligent manner and applied sudden break, auto hit a tree, turned turtle and the tree log slipped from the trolley and fell on the deceased, resulting in several bleeding injuries to deceased resulting in his instantaneous death. A case in Crime No.25 of 2O08 was registered against the driver under Sections 3O4-A and 337 of IPC. Applicants claimed that deceased was an employee of Opposite ParW No. 1 with a monthly wage of Rs.4,O00/ -. An insurance policy bearing No.3003 / 5 lg 4Z L2g I OO/00O valid from 04.06.2007 to 03.06.2008, was obrained by ou,ner of the auto trolley. At the tirne of accident, driver of auto trolley possessed a vatid driving license, auto trolley was a goods vehicle. Applicants are tlle heirs of the deceased, claimed an amount of Rs.3,OO,OO0/- as compensation from both Opposite Parties with interest @ 24o/" per annum.

4. Commissioner examined AWl, AW2 for applicants, RWl for Opposite Party No. 1 {Owner), RW2 and RW3 lor the lnsurance Company, Exs.Al to AS marked on behalf of 3 JAICJ l.M.A.No.598 of 2014 applicants and Exs-81 to B14 marked on bett lf of Insurance Company. Considering the evidence, exhibits eu Ld submissions of counsels, Commissioner passed a detailed c,I 1er, was of the opinion that there was no employer and emplo' ee relationship between deceased and owner of auto trolley i.e,. T.Anjaneyulu, who was examined as RW 1. The order of Commi rsioner is dated

28.09.2013 in W.C.No. 125 of 20 12 and the saic order is under challenge in this CMA.

5. Learned counsel lor applicants submittec that deceased was an employec undcr the employment of Opp, ,site Party No. 1 i.e., owner of auto trolley (a goods vehicle wi-J r an insurance policy). It is lurthcr submitted that accider t occurred on

20.05.2008 at around 1 1:3O hours, when the ,ehicle reached Pothareddypet Village outskirts, due to rash and negligent driving of the clriver. deceased fell on the roz.r when sudden breaks were applied and tree log which was n auto trolley, slipped from trolley and fell on the deceas: 1, resulting in injuries and deccascd died on the spot. It is als: submitted that deceased rvas a labourer working under RWl ,l rd that he was I I I I I I 4 JAK,J C.M.A.No.598 of 2014 not employed elsewhere. It is submitted that RW I in his counter afhdavit admitted emplo5rment of deceased as labourer and died during the course of employment. It is further submitted that RWl,s admission in the affrdavit (chief examination afhdavit) filed in lieu of chief examination is evident enough that deceased was a labourer (under the owner of auto trolley) and died during the course of employment.

6. It is submitted that Commissioner erred in not considering and appreciating the evidence of RWl and fell in error in coming to the conclusion that t-here was no employer employee relationship between deceased and owner. It is submitted that in similar circumstances, learned Singlc Judge of High Court of Andhra pradesh at Amaravati in C. M.A. No. 1321 of 20 17 , has directed applicants to be paid compensation by allowing the appeal. 7 Lezrrnecl counsel for Insurance Company supported the order o[ Commissioner and submitted that the order of Com missioner considered the entire evidence on record and 5 JAr(t M.A.No.598 of 2014 exhibits marked and that there is no perversity or illegality in the order passed by Commissioner and needs no interference.

8. That reliarce placed on judgment of learn e 1 Single Judge of High Court of Andhra pradesh in Kommunufi Deoa Kumari and others a. Kommunuri Mary Vasanthct Kuman l. and otherst, to buttress the contention that there i ; an employer employee relationship cannot be considered. ThzLr in the light of the evidence on record, depositions of RWI anc AWI in their cross examination, statement of mother of d,::eased (under Section 161 Cr.P.C.) are suffice to prove tha there is no employer-employee relationshi p.

9. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the submissions. 1O. Accident occurred on 20.05.20Og wher auto trolley bearing No.AP 23U 6982 betonging to Opposite I) trt5r No. 1 was proceeding towards Tutjapur from Banala Kor < apur village, with certain people with a rrec log (ippa tree). At round 1l:30 ' zoza 1r1 nrr +o 1ac; l I I t I I I i i 6 JAK,J C.M.A.No.598 of 2014 hours when auto reached Pothareddypet Village outskirts, due to rash and negligent driving of driver by applying sudden breaks, deceased fell from auto and tree log slipped from auto trolley and fell on the deceased, causing instantaneous death.

11. Auto was insured as goods vehicle vide a policy that was subsisting at the time of accident, driver of vehicle had a valid driving license. Auto hit the road side tree, due to which, tree Iog slipped and incident took place. Commissioner after perusing entire record and evidence, concluded that there was no employer employee relationship between owner of vehicle and deceased.

12. Exs.Al to A3 are FIR, charge sheet and inquest report, in all these documents, it is not mentioned that deceased was working as labourer on the auto trolley.

13. AW2 (Smt. P.Soni) was present in the trolley, she deposed that she was also s,orking as labourer on the said auto trolley at the time of accident. AW2 during cross examination stated that driver was her husband, deceased is her cousin and ,/ 7 JAK,J C M.A.No.598 of 2014 complainant (T.Kishore Kumar) is also a cousin rr rd her brother in law's daughter was also travelling in said aut. trolley on the date of accident. She deposed that they were taki rg the tree log (ippa tree) for construction of house o[ her relative s. She further deposed that she has not stated anywhere that s ee is working as labourer and that deceased was working as l, Lbourer along with her. she also deposed that herserf, decease i, driver and other persons travelling in the auto are all close r:latives. AW2 in her cross examination has stated that nowh,: e she stated that she and deceased were working as labourers.

14. RWl is the owner of auto trolley, he filed colr rter a{Iidavit, he averred that deceased died during the course c I employment with him. It is this piece of deposition, counsel for rpplicants is relying upon, but RWI in his cross examination r eposed that he does not know whether deceased and other tr latives u.ere travelling as passengers in said auto trolley. He fur.r her deposed that he does not know whether thcy arc travelling ; s labourers. RWI further deposed that deceased and driver o- auto trolley are relatives arrd they were all travelling and he a< mitted that t i 6 JAKJ C.M.A.No.598 of 2014 deceased and others were carrying one ippa tree log to Tuljapur Village for construction of house of their materhal aunt and he deposed that he do not know whether deceased was travelling as unauthorized passenger with tree log.

15. Exs.B9 to El12 are the statements of l"t and 2nd applicants recorded by the Police, Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement. 2nd applicant (under Ex.B10) stated that her son after completion of studies was working as motor welding worker. The statement before Police is that of mother of deceased and she stated that deceased was working as motor welding worker. Mother does not state her son was labourer, employed under the employment of Opposite Party No. l.

16. In the cross examination, appreciation of evidence of AWs.l and 2, Exs.AI to 43, establish the fact that deceased was not employed unclcr Opposite Party No. l-Owner i.e., who was examined as RW l. tn the light of proper appreciation of evidence by Commissioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that Commissioner did not err in recording the findings i I I i I I I ! 9 JA(J rl vl.A.No.598 of 2014 and in arriving at conclusion that the applicir rts could not establish that there was an employer emplo.y,: : relationship which is a sine qua non to mulch the Insurance I )ompany with the liability to indemnify the applicants. This (l rurt does not Iind any error in the order of Commissioner, nt perversity or illegality is made out.

17. The Honble Apex Court in Gollc Rajanna < nd. Others a. Dlvisional Manager and. Anothen, held as follov s: "10. Under the scheme of the Act, the Wr,r Compensation Commissioner is the last autl r facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to rc: t scope of the appeal only to substantial que rr law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortuna ( High Court has missed this crucial question cI jurisdiction and has ventured to re apprt't i evidence and recorded its own hndings or.r pc , of disability for which also there is no ba s whole exercise made by the High Court is rrr r the competence of the High Court under Secrrr ttre Act." <men's rity on rct the ons of 1,, the .imited te the cn tage s. The rqthin r30of t

18. The said principle enunciated in Golla Ra ianna's case (2 supra) has been reiterated in j udgmen t ot Ful'rrro:ti Dhrannd.ea Yadav and. another a. New India A: suro;nce Co. '1zorz1 t scc +5 I I l 10 JAl(J C.M.A.No.598 of 2014 Ltd.. and anothers.In the facts and circumstances of the case, no question of law, much less a substantial one, arises for consideration.

19. For reasons aforesaid, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal IS devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. a4oaa 6cc Onhrc sc llo //TRUE COPY// SD/- A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUW REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFIGER To, VH 1 . The Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-lV at T.Anajalah Karmika Samkshema Bhavan' Hyderabad. (with records, if anY) I

2. One CC to Ms. J. Naga Sudha (Amicus) IOPUCI 3. One CC to Sri Y. Nagaiah, Advocate IOPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Mahboob Hussain, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT JAK, J DATED: 1010712025 I JUDGMENT CMA.No.598 of 2014 Y \J 05 * >l (-'. r'.OF, C (J .L, * DISMISSING THE CMA $