Heard Sri v. Sambasiva Rao, learned Standing

Counsel for the Appellant : SRI V SAMBASIVA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: SRI ANNAPURNA SREERAM The Court delivered the following: Judgment l / /.,. HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY C.M.A.No.123 OF 2025 JUDGMENT: The present appeal has been hled by the insurance company challenging the order passed by the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-IV, Hyderabad (for short, 'Labour Court) in E.C.No. 197 of 2018, dated

06.ot.2025.

2. Heard Sri V. Sambasiva Rao, learned Standing Counsel for appellant-insurance company and Smt. Annapurna Sreeram, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5, who is on caveat.

3. Appellant herein is the Insurance company, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are claimants and respondent No.6 is the owner of the crime vehicle. For convenience, thc parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Labour Court.

4. The brief faclual matrix of the present appeal is as under:

4.1 One Sri Damodar (hcreafter referred as 'the deceased') is the husband of respondent No. 1, father of rcspondent Nos.2 and 3 and son of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Deceased worked as driver with the respondent No.6, on a lorry bearing No.TS 12 UB 2640 and on

25.07.2078, while he was proceeding from Miryalguda to 2 LNA,J cMA No.123 oJ 2025 Hyderabad on the said lorry with load of paddy dust and reached Duppalapttl' Village, he stopped Lhe lorry for want of diesel and made a telephone call to his employer and on instructions of the employer, deceased was proceeding to Korivengudem on a motorcycle bearing No.AP 24 AX 101 1, to collect amount for diesel and on the way at about 4.00 P.M, when he reached culvert bridge at the outskirts of Kananpally Village, Thipparthy Mandal, he lost control over thc motorcycle, due to which, motor cycle turncd turtle and as a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his head and other parts of the body. Deceased was taken to Narya hospital, Nalgonda and later shifted l"o Hyderabad and while shifting to Hyclerabad, he died at 8.30 P.M. Based on the complaint, Thiparthy Police Station registered a case in Crime No.105 of2018, under Section 304--4 of IPC.

4.2. The claimants, have hled claim petition against the opposite party Nos. I ald 2, before the Labour Court, claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,OOO/- together with interest from the date of accident till the date of realization.

4.3 It is contended that deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 30 years and was earning Rs. 15,00O/- per month and a batta of Rs.200/- per day; that he used to contribute the same to 3 LNLI cMA No.12j of 2o2s the welfare of his family; and that due to his sudden death, appellalts lost their future hope, love alrd affection of the deceased.

5. The Opposite party No. 1, who is the ownei of crime vehicle, remained ex-parte before the Labour Court.

6. The opposite party No.2- insurance company, filed a counLer denying the contents of the petition and contended that insured vehicle was not involved in the accidenL and the deceased was not driving the insured vehicle at the time of the accident and in fact, he was driving a motor cycle, therefore, Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the deceased. It was further averred that deceased was not an 'employee' within the meaning of trmployees Compensation Act, 1923 as the accident did not arise out of and in the course of the employment of the deceased and further denied that the driver was having vatid and effective driving license as on t1.e date of the accident. Hcnce, prayed Lo dismiss the claim petition.

7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the La.bour Court framed the following issues: 4 LNA,I CMANo.123 oJ 2025 i) Whether tle deceased u)ds an emplogee and met utith on occident on 25.O7.2()18 duing the course ond out oJ- his emplogment as driuer on the long bearing 1[o. ?S 12 UB 2640 in the emplogment of O.P.1 and dted? iil Who are lioble to paa compensation to the applicants? And; tit) What is the amount of compensation entitled by the opp licants?

8. [n order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the Claimants, Claimant No. I was examined as AW- 1 and trx.A- 1 to A-7 were marked. On behalf of the appellanL-insuralce company, RW-l was examined and Ex.B- I was marked.

9. The Labour Court, on due consideration of the evidence arnd material placed on record, a-llowed the application vide order dated

06.0l .2025, directing the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to pay the total compensation of Rs.8,21,O30/- jointly and deposit the sarre together with interest @ 12% per annum from 25.O7.208 till 31.07.2021 and again from 31.07.2024 till the date of realization before the Labour Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is hled.

10. Learned Stancling Counsel for the appellant contended that udmittedly, the deceased was not driving the 1orry which is insured with the appellart-insurance comp€rny, therefore, Insurance 5 LNA,J CMA No 123 ol2O2S company is not liable to pay compensation. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellalt_insurance company relied on judgment of Hon,ble Apex Court in Regionol Director, E,S.I. Corporation and. a;notlrer t/s. Frcrncts De Costa and. anotherl, wherein the Hon,ble Apex Court observed as under: "In order emplogee to succeed, it has to be proued by the tLnt (1) there utas an accident, (2) the tnd a causal connection with the employment and (3) the acciclent must haue beert accident suffered tn the course of emplogment."

11. In the above said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that since, employee met with an accident while driving from his residence to ofhce, it cannot be construed that he was on duty and met with accident during the course of his employment.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 would submit that in para No. 17 of the judgment of Labour Court, considering lhe factual and legal aspects and relying on various judgments of Ho'ble Apex Court, the Labour Court held that employee met with accident during the course of his employment. ' (r 996) 6BcqJ l I 3 .:i'. 6 LNA,] CMA No 123 oJ 2025 Learned counsel further submitted that admitteclly, deceased was on duty on 1orry and on instructions of the owner, he was proceeding to owner's place for getting funds for buying diesel, and thus, the deceased was on dutl' and the accident occurred in course of his employment. Thr:refore, the contention of the appellant-insurance company that the deceased was not on duty at the time of accident is incorrect. The Labour Court, on due consideration of the documents as well as contentions put forth by the appellant-insurance company has come to a conclusion that deceased died during thc course ol-his employment.

13. Before the Labour Court, the appellant-insurance company relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in; 0 Manju Sarkrrr and others V. Mabish Mtah and another2. (ii) rcrc| Lontbord General Insurance Compang Limited V. K. Rajendran and anotheF. (ii) Oriental [nsurance Compang Limited V. Maiamma and otlrcrs and anothera. (iii) NationaL Insurance Company Limited V. Rais and onothers. (iu) National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Dhannu Ram.6. ' 20i4 AC'J 1927 ' 20 16 ACJ 1196 o 2oo9 ACJ 2603 ' 20 t6 ACJ I 1s6 7 LNA,J CMANo-123 of 202s (u) Diuisionot Manager, United India Insurance Compong Limited V. Bira MaltkT. (ui) Poonam Deui and others V. Oiental Insurance Company LimitedB (uii) United India Insuronce Compang Limited V. paauatlees-

14. Perusal of the record would disclose that the deceased was working as Driver of Lorry bearing No. TS 12 UB 2640 arrd under employment of respondent No.6; that on 2l.OT .2O18, he was procceding from Miryalaguda to Hyderabad and when he reached Duppalaplly Village, stopped the lorry for diesel and made a Telephone call to the employer for diesel and as per the instructions of the employer, deceased was proceeding to Korivengudem on motor cycle to collect amount from employer to purchase the diesel and when he reached culvert bridge at the outskirts of Kananpally Viilage, he lost control over the motor cycle and met with accident and sustained grievous injuries ar-td expired while he was being shifted to hospital. The Labour Court taking into consideration the fact that when the deceased was proceeding to his employer to collect money for purchasing diesel for lorry, met with an accident and expired, held that the deceased expired u zooa 1ru\ u,t lsuppt) Noc 528 (HP). ' 2OOO (3) LLJ (Suppl) t386 (Ori) " 2o2o(3) 'rAC 7J(sc) 2o2oACt 1343 e 2o16 ACJ 1o87 8 LNA,) CMA No.12j ol 2025 during the course of his employment. The Labour Court, while coming to above conclusion has relied upon the above mentioned judgments of Hon'ble Apex Conrt and various other CourLs, wherein it '"vas held that, if accident takes place even when the employee/workman, was proceeding to collect money from the employer to purchase fuel/ get spzre parts of the vehicle/ crossing road to get food or tca, after stopping or parking the vehicle, has to be considerr:d as accident taken place during the course of the employment and that the empioyee/workman is entitled lor compensatio n.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the above mentioned j udgment in Regional Director, E.S.I.Corporation and a.nother (cited supra-), wlierein employee met with an accident while proceeding from his residence to office and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the same cannot be considered that the accident has taken place during the course of the employment.

16. In the present case, admittedly, the deceased was on duty and he was proceeding to his employer's residence to collect money for purchasing diesel, and therefore, in the light of the ratio laid d.own by Hon'ble Apex Court, it has to be held that deceased was on\Cuty and the accident has taken place during the course of his 9 LNA,] CMA No-123 of202s employment. In the judgment relied upon by the appellant- insurance company, has no application to the facts of present case and Lherefore, the contention ol the appellant- insurar-rce company that the deceased was not on duty is untenable. Except this contention, no other grounds are raised by the appellant- insurance company.

16. In view of the above discussion, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismisscd. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending misccllaneous applicaLions if any shall stancl closed SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1 The Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant "oa;* Karmi'ka samkshema Bhavanam' commissioner of Labour-lV.J. RTC X Roads, HYderabad 31"'ct. snrV'snruanstvn RAo' Advocate tolugl E.iE;; iI iHr nulnpuRNi sREERAM' Advocate [oPUC] 2 J 4. Two CD CoPies I To, ADK/gh HIGH COURT DATED:0710412A25 JUDGMENT GMA.No.123 ot 2025 ,,|' ,r i:.'- l '\l -_:.- ( ( 2 5 IUE 2025 t * a DISMISSING THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS