The High Court · 2025

1. SMT. G. lndira , Age:30 years Wo late G. Sanjeeva Reddy House Wife 2. Kum. G.Nagamma, Age:13 years, D/o late G. Sanjeeva Reddy (Minor) 3. Baby G.Mounika,Age:11 years, D/o late G. Sanjeeva Reddy (Minor) 4. Smt G.Yadamma, Wo Sri Janga Reddy, House Wife (all are native of Bashamunigudem, Ranga Reddy District, Presently residing a Plot No.82, lndira Nagar, Malkajgiri,Hyderabad.

5. Mr P.Venkateshwar Rao, S/o not known,Occ: Business R/o D.No. 32-25-39 Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada-1 0.

6. Mr. N.Yadagiri, S/o N.Narsimha, age major Business R/o H.No.7-2-85119i1, Road No.1 , Sainagar Colony, Bairamalguda, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District. (Respondents Nos. 5 & 6 are dismissed for default vide Court Order dated ,. 1l.rdl,3rO*r=*ra l.A. NO: 2 OF 2008(CMAMP. NO: 694 OF 2008) Pelition under Section 151 of C.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order passed in W.C.No.93 of 2005,dated.22.11.2OO7 .on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen 's Compensation and Asst. Commissioner of Labour-|, T.An.laiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavanam, RTC Cross Roads at Hyderabad. Counsel for the Appellant :SRl N. MOHAN KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 'l to 4 :SRl C. VIKRAM CHANDRA The Court made the following : JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CrvIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.349 of 2Ol4 JIIDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the order, dated 22.11.2OO7, passed in W.C.No.93 of 2005, by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation a;:rd Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I, at Hyderabad.

2. Heard N.Mohan Krishna, learned counsel for appellant and Ms. Seema Yasmeen, leamed counsel representing Mr C.Vikram Chandra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.l to 4

3. Brief facts: Respondent Nos. 1 to 4/applicants are dependents of the deceased. Deceased, a workmen, employed as a driver of lorry bearing No.AP 20U Il79 on payment of wage @!, Rs.4,OOO/- per month. Lorry was owned by Mr. P.Venkateshwar Rao i.e., respondent No.S/ lst opposite party. Deceased, while proceeding from Hyderabad towards Sathupally on 27.O8.2C,05, a.t around O4:OO a.m., lost control 2 JAK J ct\{A 349 20 t4 and dashed against a tree. The Driver (i.e., deceased) and the cleaner died on the spot.

3.1 Respondent No.5/l"t opposite party insurt:d the lorry vide insurarrce policy No.2OOS/42 14, valid fronr 12.03.20O5 to 1 1.03.2006. Contention of respondent Nos. 1 to 4/applicants was that owner of lorry i.e., respondent No.S/ l"t opposite party and the insurance c()rnpany i.e., appellant/2"d opposite parby are jointly and sever aily liable to pay the amou-nt of Rs.4,5O,O0O,/- towarCs compcnr;ation.

3.2 Commissioner for Workmen,s compensatiol (Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I, Hyderabad), ,:onsidered depositions of AW. 1 (for respondent Nos.l to 4/applicants), RW. I (for appellant/2"a opposite party), Exs.At t.o A9 and Ex.B 1 (insurance policy) and vide orcler, dated ttit..ll .2OOZ , in W.C.No.93 of 2005, held thar an amount of Rs 3,73,g26/- is to be paid as compensation, amount be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of order, failing whic.i interest @ 12% per ernnum shall be paid from the date of accident. Challenging the order, dated 22.LI.2OOZ, in W.rl No.93 of 2005, the present appeal is filed. 3 JAK, J cMA 349 2014

4. L,earned counsel for appellant/2"a opposite party submitted that Commissioner erred in not considering the contention that original owner of lorry i.e', P.Venkateshwar Rao (respondent No.5/1"t opposite party), transferred the ownership of vehicle to l\{r. N.Yadagiri (respondent No.6/3'd opposite party). That the deceased was driver of lorry of Mr. N.Yadagiri and the policy was in the narne of Mr. P.Venkatesh',var Rao, the original owner.

4.1 It is further submitted that there was no evidence to prove employer-employee relationship existed between the deceased and Mr. N.Yad agiri (i.e., respondent No.6/3'd opposite party). It is also submitted that Commissioner erred in awarding interest from the date of accident, as it is to be au,arded from the date of passing of order.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.l to 4 submitted that deceased was an employee and respondent Nos.1 to 4 / applicants are dependents of deceased. That deceased was possessing a valid driving license and accidentr/ incident occurred during the course of c .ll - 'ts 4 JAK, J cMA 349 20t4 employment. It is further submitted that ins urance policy was valid as on the date of accident/ r: cident i.e.,

27.O8.2005. That Commissioner relied upon th,: judgment of Natlonal lflsurance Compang Ltd- Vs. K.yadamma and othersl, and has rightly come to the corclusion that compensation has to be paid to the deperrrJt:nts of the deceased anC there is no inlirmity or iiiegaiity irr Lhe orcler of Commissioner.

6. Heard learned counsels, perused the rccorcl and considered the rival submissions.

7. Deceased was employed as a driver of L;,rry bearing No.AP 2OU 1179. The accident/incident o:r:urred on

27.O8.2OO5. The deceased, along with cleaner cf lorry, was proceeding from Hyderabad to Sathupally alI at about 04:OO a.m., when the lorry was reaching pallipa,lu village, deceased lost control of vehicle and dashed a rree. As a result, the driver (deceased herein) and the clealt:r died on the spot. These facts a_re not in dispute. Crime No. 109 of ' zoos 1:; eLl s89 5 JAK, J cMA 349 2014 2OO5 was registered at Konijerla Police Station' Ex'A1 is the FIR.

8. Insurance PolicY 1S valid from 12.03.2005 to ll.o3.2006.Asontlredateoftheaccident/incident, lnsurarlce policy was subsisting (Ex.Bl is the insurance policy), policy covers the risk of employee under the Act' It is observed from the order that no negligence was attributed against the deceased. g. Contentions raised by learned counsel for Insurance Company i.e., appellant/2"a opposite party is repelled by Commissioner by placing reliance on the judgment of K.Yadamma (supra). Relevant portion of the judgment is as follows: "The transfer of certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certihcate under Section 157 of the Act along with transfer of vehicle shall mean that the transfer is with all obligations ' In other words' by virtue of the transfer of tLre vehicle, all the obligations of the transferor owner would automatically stand transferred in the name of the transferee owner' Consequently, the transferor ouner would step into the shoes of the transferor owner' The further corollary is that thc terms and conditions of the insurance policy would a'utomatically cease between the transferor owner and thc Insurance Company and 6 JAK, J oMA 349 2014 take a fresh birth betrveen the transferee the Insur-ance Company.. ,)\tmer and

10. On a perusal of the said judgment, this llourt is of the opinion that Commissioner rightly relied upon the judgment. This Court is not inclined to take a clifferent vierv. I I . Exs.A 1 to ,4.9 rvere marked on behalf of respondent Nos.l to 4/applicants. AW. 1 rvas examined cn irehali oi respondent Nos. I to 4rlappricants and RW. l r,,eLs cxamined behalf of appellart/ insuran ce compan_v. li;<. B I is the lnsurance nolicy document for the said lorr;z b._,lritrg l.,io.AP 20u 1t79. t2 Cor-nmissioner further relied on G.O.lVIs.No.30 L,.E.T & F (Lab-II) Department dated 2Z.OZ.2OOO. Amount of cornpensation entitled to respondent Nos. I i,o 4 was computed, after considering the age of deceasecl 138.years). Age IS considered from the date of birth rec<u.ded in the clriving license (Ex.A6).

13. This Court does not find anv infirmity in t_r,_- findings rcccrCed by Commissioner in order, dated 22. 1 I .2007 . in 7 JAK, J cMA 349 2014 W.C.No.93 of 2O05. No grounds have been made out for interference, Civil Miscellaneous appeal is devoid of merits' 1+. For reasons aforesaid, Civit Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accorciingly disrnissed'

15. It is made clear that if interest is not paid as per the directions, interest has to be paid @ 12% per annum as held by the Commissioner in W.C.No.93 of 2O05' Interest shall be reckoned from thirty (30) days after the date of accident till the date of deposit- No order as to costs' Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. /TTRUE COPY/' SD'. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR l l SECTION OFFICER To, ii"Ff33:"TIH::"Jf ll"' Hyderabad. 1 Bfl Tl=j'i1"li::,Y,f '[T;X3"$X;13f, ::1iT'f 'fi 2. One CC to SRI N MOHAN KRISHNA' Advocate [OPUCI 3. One CC to SRI C VIKRAM CHANDRA' Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD CoPies p Pcsd/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:07103t2025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.349 of 2014 /' 1) 2 7 ti1 l'rt?! -r)| .t) \. ) /'/ '.. -jl- DISMISSING THE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL t,