The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMA]I .IUKANTI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.Sli 5 of 2014 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeai is frled aggrie,, rrl by the order dated 13.09.2007 passed in W.C.No.71 of 2005 or the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation ued Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda (for short 'the C(r :rmissioner').

2. Heard Mr. Mohammad Nabeel Ali learne I amicus for appellant-Insurance Company ald none appears forespondents

3. On 21.O3.2025, none appeared for appellant, >n 27.O3.2025, none appeared for appellant. Again when the matt€l 'was posted on 01 .O4 .2025 , none appeared for appellant, hence, I h:e matter was posted under the caption for dismissal. On 02 .)5.2025, none appeared for appellants. On 27.06.2025, this Cr r-rrt deemed it appropriate to appoint Mr. Mohd. Nabeel A1i, a 'oung budding lawyer, as amicus to assist the Court.

4. Applicant was a driver on a lorry bearing Nrr hHJ 9637. On

26.10.2004 at about 03:00 A.M., when the vehicl: reached near Bihar Hotel, Ulavapadu, applicant dashed anoth,: lorry bearing 2 JAK,J C.M.A.No.355 of 2014 No.AP 26 U 4545, coming in opposite direction from Vijayawada. Applicant sustained grievous injuries, was admitted in the local Government hospita-l and thereafter, shifted to a private hospitai, where he took treatment for one month. A case in Crime No.86 of 2OO4, ca::ne to be registered under Section 337 of IPC, at the Police Station of Ulavapadu.

5. Applicant claimed a compensation of Rs.4,00,O00/- from Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 i.e., Insurance Company and Owner. Commissioner after considering the evidence of PW1 and PW2 (for applicant), RW1 (for Opposite Party-Insurance Company), Exs.A1 to A6 and trxs.Bl to E}4 which were marked, awarded an amount of Rs.2,20,955/- as compensation, to be paid urithin 30 days, from the date of receipt of copy of the order by both Opposite Parties jointly and severally. This award came to be passed in W.C.No.71 of 2005 by the Commissione r on 13.09.2007, which is under challenge in this CMA.

6. Learned counsel for appellant-lnsurance Company (Amicus) submitted that applicalt suffered accident while the lorry was being driven towards Ongole. That he was initially treated in Government hospital, later in a private hospital, that the Commissioner erred in : 3 JAK,J C.M.A.No.355 of 2014 awarding the compensation. It is further subr Litted that the applicant was unable to prove employer employee r rlationship. It is also submitted that neither any appointment letter r,f,r any pay slip is produced by the applicant to establish the enr r-Loyer employee relationship. 7 . It is submitted that license of the applicant e>1 ired at the time of accident and it was renewed after the accid( r t. It is further submitted that the date of accident is 26.70.2004 the renewal of the license was from 26.17.2004. It is also submitte I that the same clearly establishes the fact that applicant was not rolding a hea'"y goods license as on the date of accident. It is ; >inted out that driving license issued for hrst time was to drive tratt ;port vehicles of light motor vehicles later converted into Hea'r.1' ,3oods Vehicle (Transport). It is submitted that PW2 i.e., doctor u,e r examined after 16 months of the accident, the certifrcate of disa.r lity was issued without any test being conducted. It is further submitted that applicant had to prove that the injury was durin 1 the course of employment and for such lapses on the part c I applicant, the Commissioner could not have awarded the corr I ,r:nsation. That awarding of compensation is ifitatid and not proper 4 JAK,J C.M.A.No-355 of 2014

8. Learned counsel for appellant relied on the judgment of learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in M/s. United India Insurance Compang Limited, Chennai a. Sarasuathi & othersr. Placing reliance on Paragraph Nos. 11 to 14 of the judgment, it is submitted that documentar5r proof is required to establish employer employee relationship. At Paragraph No.5, it is recorded that deceased in the said case was aged 62 years and that there was no probability of serving as cleaner in the mini lorry, the vehicle owned by his wife and it was held that application was for unlaw{ul enrichment (the facts of the said case are not applicable to the present facts).

9. In the present facts of the case, it is not disputed that driver was proceeding towards Ongole and another lorry dashed from the opposite direction and he was admitted in the Government hospital and a case in Crime No.86 of 2OO4 ca:.ne to be registered. These facts are borne by record. In the absence of any contrary evidence, this Court cannot accede to the submissions made by learned counsel that respondent No.l/applicalt was not an employee of 12021 O Supreme(Mad) 1OO -) 5 JAK,I (, 4.A.No.355 of 2014 respondent No.2/owner. The Commissioner gave the . irrding basing on the documents and evidence. i0. There is no representation on behalf of responde rts.

11. Heard learned counsel, perused the record and < onsidered the submissions of amians.

12. On 26.10.2004, at around 03:00 A.M., when rl e respondent No.1/applicalt u,as driving the lorry bearing No.AHl J637 towards Ongole, u.hen he reached near Bihar Hotel, Ulavapa < u, he dashed another lorry bearing No.AP 26 U 4545, coming fror r Vij ayarvada" The respondent No. 1 / applicant sustained fractur : of right leg pateila and grevious injuries over the body. He wir r admitted in Government hospital initially and later he took treatr ,ent for about one month in a private hospital. Opposite Party/insur mce company cross examined the applicant, it was the contenti rn before the Commissioner that the respondent No.1/applicant r; r lfered simple injuries. It was also contended that there is no empl l'1zer empl0yee relationship.

13. It is trite to extract the relevant portion of the order of Commissioner: 6 JAK,J C.M.A.No.355 of 2014 "Though the counsel for Opp. Party No.2 denied the accident and tJle relationship of employer and employee between Opposite Pa-rty No.1 and the Applicant, no contradictlng materia-l is placed in this regard basrng on which I can disbelieve the applicant's evidence and come to a different conclusion. Further, on perusal of Applicant,s evidence and the documents frled by the Applicant it is revealed that the applicalt was employed by Opposite party No.l as a Driver on the Lorr5r bearing No.AHJ-9637 and that he suffered permanent partial disability in an accident arising out of alld during the course of emplo5rment under Opp.party No.1. Therefore, the issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

14. An Orthopaedic Surgeon was exarnined as PW2, he issued a certiflcate, stating that he exarnined the applicant on 1 1.03.2006, found the applicant clinically ald radiologically with a disability of stiffness of right knee joint as a result of fracture of patella, further assessed the disability as 50o/o. He opined that because of the disability, applicant could not carr5r labour works and the counsel for Opposite Party No.2 i.e., Insuralce Company cross examined the doctor, doctor denied the suggestions.

15. RW1 wbs examined on behalf of Insurance Company, he deposed that Ex.B2 is the driving license of the respondent No. l/applicant which was renewed frorn 17.O7.2OO2 to 07.O7.2OO3 and again renewed frorn 26.11.2004 to l2.O4.2OlA. Ex.B3 is the abstract issued by R.T.A., Nalgonda regarding renewal of driving iicense pertaining to the respondent No.1/applicant. In the cross 7 JAK,J (. I.A.No.355 of 2014 examination of RWl, he stated that on 08.07.1988, ( riving license was issued to applicant to drive transport vehicles r1' light motor vehicles and the license was converted into heavy go' ds vehicle on

21.04.1993 and the last entry Ex.B3 was valid upto is observed by the Commissioner that there was . \.t.ll.2OO7. It r evidence to show that the applicant was disqualified to drive an1' t ,'ce of vehicle.

16. The Commissioner observed in the order that cn perusal of respondent No. 1's/applicant's evidence and docu:-I r:nts frled, it revealed that the applicant was employed as a drive r on the lorry and he suffered permanent disability in accident dur rrg the course of employment. The Commissioner further keepirLl , in view the disabiliry in future, considering the disability certifi' ate issued by the doctor (50%) has taken the loss of earning capac ity as 5O7o for the purposes of compensation. The respondent . tr,r. 1/applicant claimed that he vu,as being paid Rs.4,000/- per I ronth but no evidence was brought on record. Considering the nl nimum wages hxed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for hean' vehicle driver employed in Public Motor Transport Undertakings Commissioner considered Rs.3,784/ - per month as wages earneci by the driver. Insurance Policy u'as existing aT ffie time of accidrr Lt, there is no 8 IAK,J C.M.A.No.355 of 2014 dispute raised with regard to this. Commissioner having considered the evidence on record, exhibits marked and the contentions raised, awarded a compensation of Rs.2,20,955/- to be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. This Court does not frnd any inhrmity or illegality in the order of the Commissioner as contended.

17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Gollrz Rajanna and Others a Diuisional Manager aftd Another2, held as follows: " 10. Under t1le scheme of the Act, the Workmen's Compensation Comrnissioner 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 lirnited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own hndings on percentage of disability for which a-lso 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.

18. The said principle enunciated in Golla Etajanna's case (1 supra) has been reiterated in judgment of Fubnati Dhramd.eu Yad.aa ond another v. Neu, Indiq. Assuronce Co. Ltd.. and anothefi. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no question of law, much less a substantial one, arises for consideration '1zoru 1 r scc +s '2023 scc online SC 1 t05 9 JAK,J ( l/.A. No.355 of 2014

19. For reasons aforesaid, Civil Miscellaneous ApI,( zLl is devoid of merits, same is liable to be dismissed and is accord:r pdy dismissed No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shal stand closed. //TRUE COPY// ( D/- T.VIJAY KUMAR REGISTRAR =FUTY \ SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensatior lnd Assistant Commissioner of Labour - Nalgonda. (With recorc s) 2 One CC to [Vlr. [Vlohammad Nabeel AIi, Advocate [OF LIC] 3. One CC to Mr. E.Venu Gopal Reddy [OPUC] 4. one CC to Sri K Jagadishwar Reddy, Advocate [oPt C] 5. Two CD Copies DUpsl V( ,.,:' 1! /-G'r-' t!it li't 4 I t HIGH COURT DATED:01/07/2025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.355 ol 2014 DISMISSING THE CMA

4. ,{A k(-