The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 809 OF 2012 Appeal Under Section 30 of WC Act against the order dated 22-08-2011 in WC No. 38 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Commissioner For Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, at Nizamabad. Between: The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Kamareddy, Door. No. 2-11-9011, First Floor, Weekly Maiket Road, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District- ...APPELLANT/2.d OPPOSITE PARTY AND '1 . Mohsin Bin Sayeed S/o. Sayeed Bin Ali, Aged 30 years, Occ: Labourer, R/o. New Abadi, Yellareddy Village and lvlandal, Nizamabad District. ...RESPONDENT/APPLICANT 2. Gangadhar Gopal Rao S/o. Kishan Rao, Aged about 36 years, Occ: Owner of Trailer bearing No. AP-25B-9958, Ryo. Tandoor Village, Yellareddy Mandal, Nizamabad District. ...RESPONDENT/1 St OPPOSITE PARry l.A. NO: 2 OF 2011 CMAMP. NO: 2263 OF 2011) ( Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased grant stay of operation of the decree and order in WC.No.38 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, at Nizamabad daled 22nd August, 2011, pending disposal of the main CMA. Counsel forthe Appellant: Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: 1 I I i : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH C.M.A.No.aO9 OF 2Ol2 JUDGMENT

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the New India Assurance Compaly against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Depulv Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Commissioner'), 1n W.C.No.38 of 2OO8 NF dated 22.O8.2O I I whereby the Commissioner awarded a-n amount of Rs. I .'27 ,293 l- to the respondent No. 1/appticant towar-ds compensation for the injuries sustained by him.

2. Th,: brief facts lading to filing t>l this appeal are that the respondent No. 1/applicant viz., Mohsin Bin Sayeed and others were engaged as labourers by the respondent No.2 on his tractor and trailer bearing No.AP-25-B-9957 and AP-25-B-9958 lor loading and unloading of cow-dung at his fields on 08.09.1998. 2 After unloading the cow_dung while the applicant and other labourers were returning ald when they reached near Timmareddy Shivar at about 6.30 p.m, the driver of the tractor drove it in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the tractor fell into a ditch, as a result of that the applicant and other labourers sustained injuries. The applicant filed the claim application seeking compensation Rs.2,5O,OOO/- under Workmen,s Compensation Act, 1923, against the owner and insurer of the olfending vehicle as policy Cover Note No.31/61O6OS/lS4ll was valid from 2O.OL.1998 to 19.01.1999 issuecl by appellant/New India Assurance Company Limited.

3. The appellant_Insurance Company resisted the claim of the applicant by liling written starement arrd contended that the applicant is not a Workman as defined under Workmen Compensation Act unless he proves that he was under the employment of { ( t I I responclent No.2, however, admitted about the subsistence of the insurance policy at the time of accident and stated that the compensation amount claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant and further contencled that the no additional premium was paid to cover the risk of the labourer and therefore the applicant is not entifled to any compensation.

4. Before the Commissioner, on behalf of the applicant, the applicant himself was examined as AW1 and the doctor, who treated the applicant, \t.as examined as AW2 and got marked Exs.Al to A5. On behalf of the respondents, the owner of thc offending vehicle was examined as RWl and the Senior Assistant o[ Insurance Company was examined as RW2 and got marked Bxs.B1 toB7.

5. After hearing both sides and on considering the evidence record and taking into conside ration the 4 nature of fracture injuries and disability sustained by the applicant the Commissioner awarded an amount of Rs'r,26,s4o/- towards compensation and costs, payable joinfly and severalry by the owner a,d insurer of the offending vehicle. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the insuralce company. 6. Heard Sri Standing Counsej Insurance Company and none respondent No. 1 /applican t. A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned for appellant/the New India appeared for the

7. After hearing arrd on perusing the record, this Court is of the considered view that, admittedly there is no dispute with regard to the occurrcnce of the accident and also about sustaining injuries by the respondent No. r/applicant while he was travelling as one of the labourer on the offending tractor and trailer bearing No.Ap-25-B-99Sg belonging to the respondent ( t 5 No.2. Therefore there is no need to go into the merits of the czrse.

8. In the instant appeal the only contention raised by the appellant is that the owner of the offending vehicle has not paid any additional premium to cover the risk of the labourers/coolies and therefore contended that the insurance company is not liable to pay conlpensation under the Workmen Cornpensation Act.

9. Admittedly, in the instant case, the applicant sustainr:d injuries while he was engaged as a labourer on the -ractor and trailer belonging to the respondent No.2/ir-rsured. Ex.B1 is the copy of insurance policy pertaining to the offending vehicle and the policy was in force on the date of accident. It is settled law that, il personal idury is caused to a workman by accident arising '.lut of and in the course of his employment, his I,l I, :, I I I I I T E I I I I I I 6 employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provision of Chapter II of the Workmen Compensation Act. The applicant, as a labourer, who met with the accident was a third party to the contract of insurance, the insurance company is not exonerated from paying the compensation.

10. The Commissioner, relying on the principles laid down by the various Courts, rightly held that once a policy is taken by paying statutory premium, the employees of the insured such as labourer, conductor who are carried in goods carriage also covered to the extent of liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and since the respondent No. l/applicant claimed compensation under Workmen,s Compensation Act, the order impugned does not warrants any interference by this Court and accordingly the appeal is liable to be dismissed as devoid of any merits. 7

11. Ac<;ordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand ckrsed. SD/. t,(i SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The commissioner For workmen's compensation and Deputy commissioner of Labour, at Nizamabad. (with records, if any)

2. One CC to Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate IOPUC] 3. Two CD CoPies i I I To, I VH v HIGH COURT DATED: 0610212025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.809 of 2012 koB 1HE rsi4 (i!' o t) t 17 JUr,l 206 a DISMISSING THE APPEAL a