The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. V. SAMBASIVA RAO Counsel forthe Respondents: NONE APPEARED The Court delivered the following Judgment: THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUI IAR JUKANTI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.l 77 of 2013 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the order dated 16.O9.2a 13 passed in W.C.No.32 of 2012 on the f,rle of the Cor rmissioner lor Employees' Compensation and Assistant Co nmissioner of Labour I : T.Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bh Lvanam : RTC Cross Roads, H1'derabad (for short the Comrr ssioner'). This appeal is hled by the Insurarce Company.

2. Heard V.Sambasiva Rao. learned Standir g Counsel for appellant and none appears for respondents.

3. Deceased is one A.Ravi, application is hkr by his family members seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,00O,' . It is the case of applicants that on 3O.Ol.2Ol2, the deceasec working as a labourer on lorry bearing No.AP 28T 7548. Carrr ng scrap from Sneha Industries, Kushaiguda, proceeding towa :ds Moulali at about 01:30 P.M., lorry reached Venkataramar r foods, due to rash and negligent driving of driver, the scrap rr |Ine in contact 2 JAK,.' CMA No.977 of 2013 with the high tension cables the dcceascd sustained electric shock suffer ed TOYo burns. He was shifted to Tulasi hospital, died due to complications, rvhile undergoing treatment at Gandhi Hospital, Secundererbad. Crime No.52 of 2Ol2 canne to be registered against the driver of the said lony (Mr.Erupu Ashok) under Section 304-4. IPC. Commissicner examined AW1, considered Exs.Al to A8, Ex.B 1 and dircited to deposit an amount of Rs.4,29,468/- with interest @l2o/o pa from

24.O2.2012 till the date of realization.

4. Learned counsel appearing for appellant-Insurance Company submitted that in surance policy is an act pohcy Ex.B1 the insurance policy did not cover the deceased. It is further submitted that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving license on the date of the accident and a case against the driver under Section lal /177 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was registered.

5. It is submitted that though the fact of driving license is not possessed being a driver as on the date of accident, was JAK,J :MA No.977 of 2013 brought to the notice, it was not considered and hat insurance was only in respect of driver ald cleaner and hr: rce, liability of Insurance Company does not arise that i11: pite of such contentions, the Commissioner has passed the order of compensation to be paid, which is not in accordzr- rce with 1aw.

6. There is no representation on behalf of rr tplicalts. The matter pertains to yea-r 20 13 , the Workmens' 3ompensation case of the lzear 2012, this Court is not incline, . to grant any further time and intends to decide the matter on aerits

7. Heard learned counsels, perused tht: record and considered the rival submissions.

8. A lorry bearing No.AP 2BT 7548, while bei rg driven rvith scrap from Kushaiguda towards Moulali on , i0.01.2012 at around 01:3O P.M., when the 1orry reached. rl :nkataramana Foods, the scrap which was loaded in the 1or: F accidentally touched the high tension wire overhead and dur: to the electric shock, workmen sustained electric burns of 7091 and died due to complications while undergoing treatme r _ at Galdhi T i I i I I I I l i l 4 JAK,J CMA No.977 of 2013 hospital, these facts are not in dispute. The main thrust of the contention is that the driver of the insured 1orry was not having any clriving license and the lnsurance Conpany contends that the driver of the lorry did not possess a valjcl driving license at the time of accident. It is observed from the record that no evidence has been led by the Insurance Company to bring home the fact that driver did not possess the valid driving license at the time of accident. The first contention raised does not stand the test of time.

9. The other contention raised is that lhe irisurance policy covers two drivers ard one clealer and the Insurance Cornpany is'not liable to the workmen. As per Ex.Ag and Ex.Bl, the insurance policy is for lorry bearing No.Ap 2BT 754g and policy is valid from O2.O1.2O12 to 01.01.20 13. As on the date of occun'ence of the accident, the policy covers the risk of the deceased as employee. It was not denied about the emplo5rment of deceased as labourer at the tirne of occurrence of accident. The injuries sustained by deceased in the accident and occurrence of the accident are all recorded. The police '7 .l 5 JAK,J CMA No.977 of 2013 registered crlme against the driver. Ex.A4 is 1l e post mortem examination report, Ex.A6 is the registered cer ihcate showing that the vehicle is registered in the name of Oplr rsite Party No. 1 (i.e., Mr. Shaik Moulana). There is no rebuttal t - at the deceased \^,as not in employment as labourer on the lorry involved in the accident ancl that he was proceeding in th r said lorry as iabourer. There is no evidence led by the Insurzr .ce Company to rebut that the deceased was not an employee / abourer at the time of accident. In the absence of any evidence ,o the contrary, the contention of the learned counsel does not h r1d water.

10. Learned Commissioner considered the wa1 es according to Q.O's and arrived at ax amount of Rs.4,456.25 1 aise per month as wages of the deceased labourer. The calcul tion arrived at has been discussed at Paragraph No.16 of the o der, this Court perused the said calculations for arriving at thr: u.ages, there is no infirmity in determining the wages of de_-rased. Learned counsel contended that the order of the Commi isioner has not considered the facts in proper perspective. Th: contention is devoid of merits. This Court is not inclined to i.r _erfere w.ith the i : i l I I i: 6 JAK,J CMA No.977 of 2013 o order of Commissioner as the order does not suffer from perversity or illegality. 1 1 . It is trite to take note of the Hon'ble Apex Court,s judgment dealing ',r,ith the scheme of the Workrnen,s Compensation Act in Golla Rajanna and Others v. Divisional Manager and Another r , wherein the Apex Court held as follows: "10. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmeu's Compcnsation Commissioner is the last authorit_v on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions of law, being a u.elfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucia1 question of lirnited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded ils own findrngs on percentage o[ disability for which also there is no basis. The rvhole exercise made by the High Court is not withtr the competencc of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act."

12. The said principle enunciated in Golla Rajanna's case ( 1 supra) has been reiterated in judgment of Fulrnati Dhramdev Yadav and another v. New lndia Assurance Co Ltd. and another2. In the facts ald circumstances of the case. no question of law, much less a substantial one, arises for consideration. ' 1zotz1 r scc +s ' 2023 SCC Online SC 1 105 .l i G 7 JAK,J CMA No.977 of 2013

13. For reasons aforesaid, Civil Miscella_nr: rus Appeal is devoid of merits, same is liable to be dis,; rissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

11. Amounts if any to be paid to the decea r ed tamily, i.e., respondents/ applicants shall be paid as per 1l e order of the Commissioner. Miscellaneous applications pending, if ar 1', shall stand closed. To, SD/- N.CHAI\ DRA SEKHAR RAo T) :PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 't SECTION OFFICER

1. The Commissioner for Employees Commissioner of Labour _t, ai nlC X records) One CC to SRI. V. SAMBASTVA RAO, Advocate [OpU( ] Two CD Copies 2 3 Compenli, tion and Roads, ll ,derabad. Asst. ( with I/PSL l{ .u\\- J.'kl ( ) ) i9 JAl'l 2026 t irg r I '/ HIGH COURT DATED: l'l106/2025 J udgment CMA.No.977 of 2013 DISMISSING TIIL- (]MA WITHOUT COSTS (. b 2 , a I I I