Miscellaneous Appeal No. 116 of2015 · The High Court · 2025

Order

/e, THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CTVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.116 of2015 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved b,v the order dated 04.OB-2O 14 passed in W.C.No.41 of 20 13 on the hle of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation and Assistatlt Commissioner of Labour-I : T. Anjaiah Karmika Sankshema Bhavanam : RTC Cross Roads : at Hyderabad (for short 'the Commissioner'), this civil miscellaneous appeal is filed b1' Insurance Company.

2. Heard Ms. J.Nagasudha, learned amicus for appellant- Insurance Company and Mr. Narender Sharma PVB, learned counsel representir-rg Mr. Akkam Eswar, learned counsel for respondents. Inspite of the matter being posted under the caption 'for

3. dismissal', the counsel on record for appellant-lnsurance company is not present. This Court deemed it appropriate to appoint Ms. J.Nagasudha, (a young budding lawyer) as amicus on behalf of appellant to assist the Court as matter is of the i 2 * .JAK,I C. M.A.No.116 of 2015 year 20 15. ']'oday, when the matter is pos1e,j rnder the same caption, there is no representation on bc} r If of appellant (Mr.N.Mohar Krishna). This Court requesr<.rl the amlcus to proceed wirh rhe submissions. No.r'l) 20AP 3273. (Snr A. t,akshmi). it

4. Applicants are the parents of deceasecl. Deceasecl u,as working as a clriver on tractor bearing Tractor is ou'ned by Opposite party No. 1 was insured with Opposite party No.2 (lnstrr i appellant herein), policy valid from 08.05.20 I - covering the date of accident. On 31.03.2O 1i;. on duty, after- unloading mud in the pits of Rci Buildings De partment) along with labourers r from Rallavagu Village to Battupally Village li r When the traotor reached Donthu Chendraial_r .l- as proceeding to O7.05.2013. rrce Companr., cls (Roads arrd I eceased u,hile Ioading mud. rdakala Kottu, deceased lost control over the tractor, it turned fell on the road, sustained injuries over the bo:. the spot. rrtle, deceased ,, and died on

5. Crime No. 12 of 2Ol3 came to be registerrr in the police Station of Karrrkagrrdem of Khammam District, r nder 304-4 of ,.,//. ,n 3 JAK,] C.M.A.No.116 of 2015 IPC. Applicants claimed that deceased was being paid wages @ Rs.8,000/- per month, aged about 20 years at the time of accident. Insurance Cornpanl' opposed the c1aim.

6. Commissioner examined AW1 wltness for applicants, RWI for lnsurance Company, trxs.A1 to A6 were marked on behalf of applicants, Ex.B 1 is the Insurance Policy. Considering the depositions of witnesses, exhibits marked and the submissions, Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.7,43,39O/- wrth interest @ 12% per annum to be paid by Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severallJ' liable from 01.05.20 13 till the date of realization. This order of the Commissioner in W.C.No.41 of 2013 dated 04.OA.2014 is under challenge in this CMA. 7 . t earned amicus appearing for Insurance Company submitted that deceased q,as not working as a driver on the tractor, wages claimed by applicants is not supported by arty documents and that there was no employer employee relationship and the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment. It is further submitted that Insuralce Company is not liable to pay interest and the Commissioner I I 4 JAK,] :.M.A. No.116 of 2015 erred in taking the minimum \t,ages as Rs.4, Lt) ) /_ per month, that compensation of Rs.7,43,390/- is high.

8. Learned amicus submitted that dec.t I possessing a valid driving license, was gratur and that there vr.as no materia_l placed by appli,: that deceaserl was working as driver. It is fu I that the oumer of the vehicle violated by the cor-.r of insurance by handing over the vehicle to a 1r not possessing a valid driving license. Her Companv is not liable to pay any amount as sc'd \[ras not )us passenger mts/claimants l-rer submitted itions of polic.r, 'rson u,ho was re, Insttrance :om pensation. That, appeal he allowed.

9. Learned counsel for respondents/applic I that ou,ner in his counter affidavit admitted thc the deceased as a driver on the tractor (bear-i: 32731 on payment of wages @ Rs.4,S00/_ pcr further submitted that owner admitted the dea_ r ts submitted rmployment of 3 No.AP 20AP month. It is L of the driver was accidental while on duty as driver on the sa I tractor. It is also submitted that Opposite party No. I (owner) I ad stated that deceased was more than 25 years age and the.r e was a valid 5 JAK,J C.M.A.No.116 of 2015 policy from 08.05.2012 to 07.05.20i3 covering the date of accident

10. It is submitted by counsel that lhere was a valid policy of insurance and as per contract, the insurance company is iiable to pay for the death of deceased that the accident occurred during the course of employment. It is further submitted that Commissioner had recorded it u,as the insurance company which entered into a contract and it is the insurance company which has to indemnify and cannot escape its liability. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to the judgments relied by the Commissioner and submitted that Opposite Party No.2 i.e., insurartce company is bound to indemnify and compensate. It is also submitted that Commissioner granted liberty to the insurance company to approach the appropriate authority against the insured for the breach of terms and conditions of insurance PolicY. 1 1. It is pointed out that Commissioner held Insurance company liable, directed payment of Rs.7,43,390/- holding I 6 JAK,J i ivl.A. No.115 of 2015 Olrposite Part.r, Nos.l and 2 jointly and severzrll liable to pay compensatio n

12. Heard learned counsels, perused tht: re<;ord and considered thc submissions.

13. Acciderrt occurred on 31.03.20 13, wher: the deceased driver after unloading mud pits of R&B road, u'as proceeding from Rallavagu to Bat upally i.illage, for loading mL d. When the tractor reached Dontl lr Chendraiah Tadakala Kotl u, deceased lost control over tlt : tractor and tractor turned turtle. Deceased fe1l on the road zi ,cl died on the spot due to thc injuries sustained. Crime No.12 r1 20 13 under Section 304 A IPC came to be registered in the Fr licc Station of karakagudem :f Khammam District.

14. AW 1 is the mother of deceased, she is a rplicant No. I herein. She entered the witness box. She deposr I that herself and her husband were dependants on the eir nings of her deceased son. She denied that her son never wo: :ed under the Opposite Party No.1 and denied that her son w,l ; not a driver , 7 I I I ) 7 JAK,.] c.M.A.No.116 0f 2015 on the date of accident. She stated the same in the chief affidavit also.

15. A counter afflrdavit was filed by Owner-Opposite Party No.1, it was admitted that deceased driver was employed on the tractor on payment of wages of Rs.4,500/- per month and that on the date of accident 31.03.20 13, he was on duty as a driver. Opposite Party No.1 stated in her counter affidavit that deceased was aged more than 25 years and that tractor was insured from 08.05.2012 to 07.05.2013.

16. Insurance company in its counter afhdavit denied the employer employee relationship and averred that deceased u'as not workman within the meaning of Act. It u'as further averred that deceased did not die during the course of employment that driver was not having a valid driving hcense. It was a,lso averred that the seating capacity of tractor is only one and there is no privity of contract between the owner and insurance company to indemnify the owner in respect of any labourers a-nd that Opposite Party No. I has not informed them about the accident which is mandatory. 8 JAK,] M.A.No.116 of 2015

17. Commissioner on the basis of Ex.A1 (Fi I copy), trx.A2 (certified copr of charge sheet) and Ex.A3 (,:,py of inqr_rest panchanama), held that deceased died in thr: accident as a driver and same \\/as recorded in all the above locuments. He further recorcted tl-rat applicant Nos. I and 2 (far 1 er and mother of deceased) \i'ere present at the time of inques as reflectecl in inquest panchanama and in the charge sheet Ex.A4 is the certified cop1, of post mortem report, cause of d: tth recorded is due to head irjun, with multiple bone fractures. Commissioner rejectecl the r:ontentiot-r of Insurance Companv that deceased was a gratuitous passenger and rejected the c tntention that \\/as no cmplor.er employee relationship on the p .ound that the insurance cornpany has not placed any materii I to disbeiieve the version of applicants and also did not place .ny material to substantiate the contention that deceased u,:r a gratuitous passenger.

18. In the cross examination of AWI (mother , she deposed that driving license of deceased was misplaced i. , the accident. Contention wzrs raised by the insurance compart that driver of 4 9 JAK,,I C.M.A.No.116 of 2015 the tractor was not having a valid driving license and owner of the vehicle violated the terms of insurance policy and therefore, Opposite Party No.2 (Insurance Company) was not liable to indemnify risk of Opposite Party No. 1. It was further contended that police hled a charge sheet against driver and owner of said tractor under Section 5 r/w i80 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, for violating terms and conditions of provision of the Act.

19. Commissioner carved out distinction betw'een the contractual liability and statutory liability, held liability to pay compensation for road accident victims was statutorily imposed on the insurance company and directed them to satisfy the avvard passed against the vehicle owner. That insurance contract herein being a bipartite agreement, lnsurance company covers the insured from the said risk that the arrangement was between vehicle owner and the insurance company. That the liability created under Motor Vehicle Act being statutory and the liability created under the contract of insurance as between vehicle owner and the insurance company is of contractual nature that if there is any breach of l 10 IAK,I ( N,l.A. No.116 0f 2015 terms ard conditions of polic1,, it was matter I )tween vehicle owner and insurance company. Commissior:r held that Insurance Co:npanv u.as alu,ays at libertl,- to p oceed against ou,ner of the vehicle. Commissioner relied upon . ,e judgment of Hon'b1e Apex rJourt in National Insurance Concang Limited. a. Sutrrrrrn Singh and othersl. placing reli: tce upon the Hon b1e Apcx Court j udgment, Commission e r opined that insurance cornpany cannot be allowed to av,) d its liability under the contract of insurance ald held - ritt lnsurarrce company cannot escape its liability.

20. Commissioner considcred Minimum Rates ,f Wages fixed by the Government of Andhra pradesh vide ).O. Ms.No.90, dated 28.09.2OO7 and fixed basic wage for a lighr vehicle driver as the rvage of deceased. Though, the applLr ants claimed Rs.8,OOO/- per month as wages, applicants did nr t produce any statutory wage register. Hence, claim was rightly ;ejected by the Commissioner. Fixing basic wage of deceased as I s.4, 1O2l- per month with the applicable VDA, Commissioner a- ived at a sum ' 1zooa1 : scc zsz 1l JAK,J C.M.A.No.116 of 2015 of Rs.6,6 10.80 paise per month and granted interest @72o/o per annum from 01.05.20 13 till the date of realization. To the grant of interest, Commissioner relied upon the judgment of Orlental Insurance Compang Limited. a. Sibg George and othersz, this Court does not find any inlirmity or illegality in the order of the Commissioner and is not inclined to disturb the findings arrived at bv the Commissioner

21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Golla Rajanna and Others u. Diuisional Manager and Anothers, held as follows: " 10. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's Compcnsation 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 Iarv, bcing a welfare legislation- Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction ald has ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own hndings on percentage oi disability for which also there is no basis. The whole cxercrse made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act."

22. The said principle enunciated in Golla Rajanna's case (3 supra) has been reiterated in judgment of Fuhnati Dhramdeu Yadau dnd another a. New India Assuron,ce Co. ' ntn 20t2 sc atqa '1zorz1 t scc as 72 JAK,J : M.A.No.116 0f 2015 .t.. ,E Ltd, and. qnother4. In the facts and circumstar ces of the case, no question of 1au,, much less a substantial one. arises lor consideration

23. For rezrsons aforesaid, Civil Miscellans )us Appeal devoid of merits, same is liabie to be dir; aissed and is accordingly d ismissed . No ordcr as to costs, 1S Miscellaneous applications pending, if a r 1., shall stand clo sed. To Sd/- V.KAVITHA T EPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI FICER z 1 The Commissioner for Employees, Compenszrl cn and Assistant commissioner of Labour -r r. Anjaiah Karimika S;r rkshema Bhavanam, R.T.C. Cross Roads. Hyderabad. ( with records) One CC to SRl. N. MOHAN KRISHNA Advocate [OpU: One CC to SRl. AKKAM ESHWAR Advocate tOpUCl Two CD Copies 4 4w kul/PR o2o2g scc online sc 1105 HIGH COURT DAIED:2510712025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.116 of 2015 I t TIIE S 3 1 iAl,l 2,02fi * PArC DISMISSING THE t]MA WITFIOI]1'COSTS (" t|/