The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including the execution of the Orders, dated 13-4- 2015, in WC No. 77 of 2014, passed by the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation and Asst. Commissioner of Labour-1, RTC X Roads, at Hyderabad, including withdrawal of money deposited by the Petitioner lnsurance Company pending the above appeal before this Hon'ble Court in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Sambasiva Rao Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON,BLE SHR,I JUSTICE AI{IL KUMAR JUKANTI CTVIL MISCELLANEOU S APPEAL No.492 of 2O15 JUDGMENT: ThisCivilMiscellaneousAppealislrledaggrievedbythe order dated 13.04.2015 passed in W'C'No'77 of 2Ol4 on the file of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation a]ld Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Hyderabad (for short 'the Commissioner').

2.HeardMr.SambasivaRao,learnedStandingCounselfor appellant/Opposite Party No'2 and None appears for re spondents '

3. Applicant (i.e., respondent No 1) is the mother of deceased' The deceased was working as a Cleaner on lorry bearing No'AP 16TC 4195. Opposite Party No 1 rx'as the employer of the deceased. on 21.01,2014, when the lorry was proceeding from Chennai Port to Narketpally with iron pipes' at 2 1:00 hours' when the lorry reached Gopalapuram Village (Addanki- Narketpally Highway), the driver applied breaks suddenly' As a result the pipes pressed the body of the Cleaner of lorry 2 v€,2re (deceased) and a,lso the Driver. Body was shiftr.< | to Government Hospital, Addanki. A case in Crime No.16 of 201,4 under Section 304,{ of IPC was registered at pS Addanki ofpral asham District. 4. Applicant claims the deceased was 1 raid wages of Rs.8,C00/- per month & batta of Rs. 100/_ per cLry, w-as aged 22 j'-q:r. ,rruuiri,ce roiicy bearing No. 1510003 1r3p1015gg136 was valid from 15.06.2013 to 14.06.2014. Apllicant claimeC Rs.8,00,000/ torvards comoensation f1om the s..rpcsitc paities. Notices were recei..,ed bi. 1 ,, and 2"a opposite pa .rties. Opposite Part-v No.1 did not appear, was set ex,parte. Oppcsite party No.2 hled counter affldavit. These facts a-re not in disprr te. I--,,-^.^^^

5. It is conter-rded by learned Standing Counsr,l for appellant lnsurance Compan-y that the deceased was n. r: a workmarr under the Emproyees' compensation Act, 1923 ror short ,the Act, 1923) and denied the emproyment as a crear: t r. Issua,ce of Instrrance policy of the said lorry was denied. It is submi[ted that Insurance policy mentioned in the claim ap1 rlication does not tally with the series of the policy. It is also s r rbmitted that Driver of the lor4, l,r.as nct havinfu a valid drivinll iicense. It is 3 pointed out that the compensation claimed is excessive and exaggerated and the applicant is not entitleci for the compensation.

6. Heard learned Standing Counsel for appellant-lnsurance Company and pemsed the record.

7. Commissioner examined AW. 1 ior the applicant anci none vr.ere examined for opposite par'ries, applicant filed Exs.lrl to A7. Ex.B 1 is the copy of Insurance Policy in respect of lorry. B. Ex.Al is a copy of FIR I{o.16 of 2014, the Police record revealed that deceased was son of applicant. Ex.A2 is a copy of inquest report. In the chief alfidavit of AW. 1, it is stated that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the accident, while proceeding on the lorry in the capacity as it's Cleaner. trx.A3 is the Post Mortem Report, Ex.A4 is a copy of Registration Certificate showi-ng that the lorry was registered in the name of Opposite Party No.l. Ex.A6 is a copy of driving license of the Driver and the said license is valid upto 24.1O.2O16. 4 9 . Learned Standing Counsel for appr: lant-lnsurance Company contended that Commissioner fell into r rror in coming to the conclusion that the deceased was a Cleal .:r and granted compensation. That no employer-employee rr,l,rtionship was esta.bLished.

10. Commissioner, relying on the documents anrl the evidence on record. came to the conclusion that the docurrents establish thal thq deceased r..as a Cleane:- cn lhe lorry all ! mci ,"r.:th an accrcierl on zi.Ai.2Oi4. Commissioner further held that the Driver o[ the lorry had a valid and effective ,i riving licence. Cornmissioner arrived at a finding that nothing ,,,ras placed on record to believe that the deceased was apassenger and not a Cleaner. The evidence of AW. 1 stands un-rebr .rtted, on the strength of un-rebutted evidence of AW. 1 and the documentaqz evidence, it is apparent that ijle deceased war; an employee working as a Cleaner alrd suffered injuries durin3 the course of employment. lnsurancc policy s,as valid from _ 5.06.2013 to

14.06.2O14, as on the date of the accident, it was ir existence. 5 1 1. Though the deceased claimed wagcs of Rs'S,OOO/- per month, no cvidence was placed in support of the u'ages' Commissioner rightly relied orr the minirnum rate of wages fixed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in employment of Public Motor Transport and concludeci that the basic wage of Cleaner is Rs.2,6451 per month and Variable Dearness Aliowance is Rs.2,7721 - as notihed by the Commissioner, totaling t Rs.5,417/- per month- t2. Upon considering the entire factual matrix of the case a:rd on the basis of the record, tl-ris Court is of the opinion that the order of Ccmmissioner does not suffer from any infirmity or iltegality irr arvarding the compensation of Rs'6,O2,2a1 /

13. The Hon'bie Apex Court, 'r,'hile dealing with the scheme of the Workmen's Compensation Act in Golla Rajanna and Others ) v. Divisional Manager and Arotherr, held as follows: " 10. Under the scheme of the Act, tl-e Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts The Parliament has thought it ftt to restrict the scope of the appeal only to subsantlal questions of law, being a welfare legislatit.rn Unfortunately' the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction ald has vcntured to re-appreciate the evidcnce and recorded its '1zorz1 r scc as 6 own hndtngs on percentage of disability for which also t Lere is no basis. The rvhole exercise made by the High Court is r ot within the cornpetence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act "

14. In the lacts and circumstances of the case, 10 question of law, much less a substantial one, arises for conr;ideration. On this ground too, the Civil lyliscellaneous Appeal : s liable to be dismissed.

15. For reasons aforesai.J, Civi! lvlisceiianeous Aopeai is devoid of merits, is !i"ble to be dismisse ti aLrci is accordirrl;ly ciismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneo,-rs applications pencling, if an1 , shall stand closed I;D/- A.V.S.PRASAD Dt.PUTY REGISTRAR \ t ti$rtOru oFFtcER d //TRUE COPY// o "1,11,, .*TB, "iTl, oi: I ffi ffi : j and Assistant (with records, if To,

1. The Commissioner r, ; ; ; ; il ; "ij c " "l

3. ,il5 33 t""H,t"basiva Rao. Advocate topucJ kan/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 JUDGMENT E O ELA " \ s >. t, ,..-\ CMA.No.492 of 2O15 ,a:, ,! ./J ./ -\_ DISMISSING OF THE CMA