The High Court · 2025

SMT. SATYA SREE - Counsel for the Respondents: REDDY SOMA SMT. T. PADMAJA REP. SRI HARTNATH The Court detivered the folowing: JUDGMENT --t,.t;r THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CTVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.941 of 2OL4 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the order dated 3O.O7.2O14 passed in W.C.No.53 of 2Ol2 on the file of the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour-[ : T.Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavan : R.T.C. Cross Roads, Hyderabad (for short 'the Commissioner), this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by applicants.

2. Heard Ms. A.Satya Sree, learned counsel representing Mr. Balla Ravindranath, learned counsel for appellants and Ms. T.Padmaja, learned counsel representing Mr. Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for respondents.

3. Applicants are the wife, children and father of deceased. It is claimed that deceased was working as driver of TATA Indica Car bearing No.AP 09 BG 4329 under the employment of Opposite Party No.1 (Owner i.e., own brother of deceased). Accident occurred on 12.OI.2O12, when deceased driver was 2 JAK,J C.M.A.No.941. of 2OL4 proceeding in a car along with relatives from Mancherial to NarseLmpet of warangal at about o5:00 hours in the morning. on 112.01.2012, wh,ert the car reached outskirts of Mallapoor villagr: (limits of PS Dharmaram), deceased lost control over the car, car turned turtle and deceased died on the spot (G.Kumara Swamy, driver). A case in crime No.7 of 2oL2 under Sections 3o4(A), 338 and 337 of Ipc was registered in the Pc,lice Station of Dharmaram.

4. ,\pplicants claimed a wage of Rs.g,0 oo / - per month and Batta of Rs.25o/- per day was being paid. Deceased was havingl a valid driving license and insurance policy was valid from 29.12.20 1l to 28.L2.2or2, covering the date of accident. The risk of driver was also covered under the insurance policy. Applicants claimed Rs.g,00,0oo/- as compensation. commissioner examined Awl /wife (for applicant), none for oppos:te Party No.l-owner, Rwl (for Insurance company), Exs.Al to A5 for applicants and Exs.Bl to 84 for opposite Party No.2. commissioner after considering the evidence, exhibits marked, submissions of counsels vide order dated t 3 JAK,J C.M.A.No941of 2014

30.O7.2014 in W.C.No.53 of 2012 dismissed the case filed by applicants. The said order is under challenge in this CMA.

5. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that the deceased was a driver of vehicle and accident took place on

12.01.2012. That the vehicle hit a road side tree due to which driver of vehicle died on the spot and three others also died white others sustained injuries. It is further submitted that AWl in her chief affidavit has stated that her husband along with relatives was proceeding from Mancherial to Warangal to attend funeral as per the instructions of owner of vehicle. It is also submitted that merely because owner of vehicle is own brother of deceased, there is no bar that deceased cannot be employed as a driver. Reliance is placed upon judgment of High Court of. Andhra Prades h in Kornmunuri Deua Kumari and others u. Kommunuri Mary Vo.santha Kumari and othersl, inviting the attention of this Court to Paragraph No.17 of judgment, it is contended that as on the date of accident the insurernce policy was in force and the deceased ' zozq Fl ALT 40 (AP) i 4 JAK,J C.M.A.No.941of 2074 was having a valid driving license and that relationship betwt:en deceased and owner cannot be a ground to reject the claim of applicants.

6. Learned counsel submitted that though notice was issuecl to owner, owner did not enter the witness box and as such the fact that deceased was not employed as a driver could not be proved by Insurance Company and it is the Insurance Company which has to prove whether there was an emplorrer employee relationship existing at the time of accident. Learned counsel has invited the attention of this Court to the order of Commissioner and submitted that, nowhere in the order, it is recorded with regard to owner of vehicle having employed the deceased. In other words, it is contencted that Insurance Company was at liberty to examine the owner but has not taken any steps to disprove the fact of employer employee relationship and that order of Commissioner also does not reflected the same. ; : i I i I 5 JAK,J C.M.A.No.94L ol2O14

7. Learned counsel fbr respondent-lnsurance Company submitted that AW 1, in her chief afhdavit has stated that her husband along with relatives of Opposite Party No.1 (owner) were proceeding in the car from Mancherial to Narsampet of Warangal district, that at the outskirts of Mallapoor Village, the accident occurred. It is further submitted that AW1 in her cross examination has stated that on the date of accident she with her three children, her sister, her aunt were travelling in TATA Indica Car to attend the funeral of their relative. It is further submitted that RWl (the employee on behalf of Insurance Company) had deposed that in the FlR, inquest report, 161 statements and in the flrnal report reflecting that the deceased took the car to attend funeral of their relative and that the car was used for his personal requirement and as such it cannot be said that it was during the course of employment.

8. It is submitted that Commissioner after considering the evidence on record, concluded that the deceased was not working as a driver and there was no employer employee : I 6 \ JAK,J C.M.A.No.941 of 2Ot4 relationship and that accident did not occur in the course of employment as a driver. To buttress this contention, it is subnritted that Awl had given contradictory statements in the chief affidavit and in the cross examination, that no other independent witnesses examined by applicants to bring home the fzrct that deceased was working as a paid driver. It is pointe:d out that the order of . commissioner does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and interference is not necesliitated.

9. l{eard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the submissions.

10. Accident occurred on t2.or.2o12, at early hours. Vehicle involved is TATA Indica car bearing No.Ap 09 BG

4329. The crime vehicle was being driven by deceased (G.Kumar Swamy), husband of AWl. Opposite party No.1 is the owrrer of vehicle, he is own brother of deceased. on the fateful d.y, deceased was driving the vehicle along with relatives, these facts are not in dispute. ; I I t 7 JAK,J C.M.A.No.94L of 2OL4

11. AW1 was examined on behalf of applicants. In the chief affidavit filed, she stated that her husband was proceeding in the car with family members of the Opposite party No.l (owner), as per the instructions of the owner of vehicle. In the cross examination of Awl, she stated that on the date of accident herself, her three children, her sister and her aunt, were travelling in the car. The chief evidence is contrary to her cross examination. As per the cross examination of AWl, deceased was travelling along with his wife, children and other relatives, but in the chief affidavit, she stated otherwise. This contrar5r evidence is recorded by the Commissioner.

12. No documents have been placed on record to buttress the fact that deceased was working as a driver on crime vehicle under the employment of Opposite Party No.l. Though, there is no bar that the brother of owner of vehicle cannot be employed as a driver.

13. Merely because the deceased was driving the vehicle and vehicle had a valid insurance and deceased was having a 8 JAK,J C.M.A.No.94']. of 2Ot4 valid ,lriving license, does not in any way bring home the fact that cleceased was employed as a driver as on the date of accident and accident was in the course of employment withotrt there being any evidence adduced by applicants. In the absence of any evidence or documents filed by applicants to prorre the case that deceased was working as driver under the employment of Opposite Party No.1 cannot be considered. It is a fact that the deceased was travelling along with his relatives td attend the funeral of one of their relatives at Narsanrpet, Warangal district, from Mancherial. The Commirssioner arrived at a conclusion on the basis of evidence adducerl, exhibits marked that deceased was not employed as a paid iriver under the employment of Opposite Party No.l (o'*,ner :.e., own brother of deceased) and that deceased did not die during the course and out of his employment as a driver rtnd therefore, dismissed the application as not maintainable. It is pertinent to note that Opposite Party No.1 is own brother of deceased and he has not entered the witness box to depose that deceased driver was under his 9 JAK,J C.M.A.No.94L of 2Ol4 employment and that the accident occurred during the course of employment. In the absence of own brother of deceased in entering witness box, in spite of notice, is fatal to the case of applicants, evidence on record also proves that no effort has been even made by applicants to prove the fact of employer employee relationship and accident having taken place during the course of employment. This Court does not l-rnd any infirmity or illegality in the order of the Commissioner.

14. The issues which have been raised are issues whether there is an employer employee relationship is a question of fact which needs to be proved on the basis of evidence adduced before the Commissioner.

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in T.S.Shglojo a. Oriental Insurance Compang and another2, held as follows: "11. The only reason which the High Court has given to upset the above frnding of the Commissioner is that the Commissioner could not blindly accept the oral evidence without analysing the documentary evidence on record. We fail to appreciate as to what was the documentary evidence which the Commissioner had failed to appreciate and what was the contradiction, if '1zot+12 scc s8z \ 10 JAK,J C.M.A.No.94t of 2OL4 (' any, between such documents and the version given by the witnesses examined before the Commissioner. The High Court could not have, without adverting to the documents vaguely referred to by it have upset the finding of fact which the Commissioner was entitled to record. Sufhce it to say that apart from appreciation of evidence adduced before the Commissioner the High Court has neither referred to nor determined any question of law much less a substantial question of law existence whereof was a condition precedent for the maintainability of any appeal u/s 3O. Inasmuch as the High court remained oblivious of the basic requirement of law for the maintainability of an appeal before it and inasmuch as it treated the appeal to be one on facts it committed an error which needs to be corrected."

16. I3y a catena of judgments, the Honble Apex Court has clearly held that a substantial question of law is a condition precedent for the maintainability of any appeal under Section 30 of the Act.

17. Learned counsel had relied upon the judgment of learned Single Judge in Kommunuri Deua Kumari and. others (1 supra), in the said case relied upon, it is observed that tht: order passed by the learned Tribunal was a cryptic order and learned Single Judge held that as the order of Tribunal being cryptic in nature, interference of the Court is warrantr:d. . : I I i : I I ; i i : I i I i I I I 11 JAK,J C.M.A.No.94L of 2074 1g. In the case relied upon by the counsel, owner of the vehicle filed counter affidavit stating that as on the date of death, the driver was drawing his monthly salar5l, in the present case neither the owner entered witness box nor has f-rled counter affidavit, as the facts of the case are not applicable, the judgment cannot be considered.

19. The Hon'lole Apex court in Golla Raianna and others a. Diuisional Manager qnd. Anothefi, held as follows: "10. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section 3O of the Act."

20. The said principle enunciated in Golla Rajanna's case (3 supra) has been reiterated in judgment of Hon'ble Apex court in Fulmati Dhramdea Yadaa @nd o;nother a. New t (zorz) 1 scc 4s I 12 JAK,J C.M.A.No.941of 201.4 Indiirr Assurance Co. Ltd. and anotherq. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no question of law, much less a subslantial one, arises for consideration.

21. For reasons aforesaid, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is devoicl of merits, same is liable to be dismissed and is accor<lingly dismissed. No order as to costs lvliscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed To, /ffRUE COPY// . A.V.S. PRASAD REGISTRAR OFFICER

1. The Cr>mmissioner for Workmen Compensation & Dy. Commissioner for Labour.l, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad

2. One Crl to Smt. Satya Sree, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One C(l to Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two Ct) Copies M. ASR/PSL o 2023 SCC Online SC 1105 T iilF. li ? t []7"l"B lln' * I HIGH CC)URT DATED i2.310712025 JUDGMENT CMA.N o.941 of 2014 DISMISSTNG THE APPEAL p, v \,s