The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Ms. Padmaja Amicus Sri Harinath Reddy Soma (Not present) Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Sri P' Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.4:---- The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUIII {R JUKANTI CTVIL MISCEL LAN EOUS APPEAL No.1 52 of 2OL4 I JUDGMENT: Aggrieved bi, order dated 1l '06 '2O14 W.C.No.722 ot 2Ol2 on the file of the Cotr Employees' Compensation and Deputy Co-t Labour-l : T.Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhz passed in missioner for missioner of vanam : RTC Cross Roads : Hyderabad (for short 'the Comnt ssioner'). This civil miscellaneous appeal is hled by Insurance or mpany.

2. Heard Ms. T.Pad.maja, learned amiats br appellant- rtlon, a young Insurance Company (as there \\ras no represenl budding lannyer is appointed as amicus to assi I the Court as matter pertains to 2OI4l and Mr. P.Rama l( -ishna Reddy, learned counsel for resPondents.

3. One Mr. Bheema (deceased) "r'as working a ; a helper on a bore well 1orrl' bearing No.AP 29BH 0B 12, on nonthly u,ages with Opposite Party No.1 (A1ia Krishna Reddy) the owner. On

20.O2.2012, u,hile the deceased was on duty as relper, he died 2 JAK,I C.M.A.No.1052 of 2014 due to electric shock on the spot. Applicants (wife and 2 minor children) claim that accident occurred during the course and out of employment and as on the date of death, the insurance policy of Opposite Party No.2 Reliance General Insurance Company Lirnited was in existence. Applicalts claimed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. Crime No.17 of 2012 carne to be registered in the Police Station.of Ramannapet of Nalgonda District under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Commissioner considered the submissions, examined witnesses AW1 for applicants, RW1 for Insurance Company, Exs.Al to AB marked for applicants, Ex.B 1 lor Insurance Policy, arrived at a compensation of Rs.4,85,769 I- with interest @12% per annum from 22.O3.2O12 till the date of reafization to be paid by Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 jointly arld severally. This order of the Commissioner dated 1 l.06.2014 in W.C.No.122 of 2Ol2 is under chailenge.

4. Learned amicus appearing for Insurance Company submits that the compensation awarded is excess. It is further submitted that the basic wage of helper is less and the Commissioner erred in taking the basic u'age of helper at 3 JAK,J ( M.A No.1052 of 2014 Rs.2,6451- per month and that in addition to he basic wage, VDA rvas added. It is also submitted that ,ota1 wages of Rs.4,456.25 paise per month considered is irr excess, hence, the compensation granted is more. Learned cor nsel submitted that granting of interest is contrary to the princq le laid down in P.J. Naragan u. Union of India and otherst et d Union India Insurance Compang Limited. a. Smt. Na1 arathna and others2

5. Learned counsel for respondents/ applic z nts submitted that Commissioner considered Exs.A1, A2 and li : and held that the deceased rvas employed as a worker on the rore well 1orry. It is further submitted that the deposition of I .W. 1, in claim petition and chief affidavir was also considered t is submitted that Commissioner after considering the exhibit , held that the deceased met with an accident and died of elt:, tric of electric shock. It is also submitted that Commissioner r( lied on Exs.A3 and A5 to conclude that or,vner of the vehicl: was one Alla Krishna Reddy. ' lzooty aa +sz ' 1zooa1 aa an 4 JAK,I C.M.A.No.1052 of 2014

6. It is submitted that applicants claimed that deceased was being paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month by Opposite Party No. 1 and Commissioner erred in not considering the wages @) Rs.5,000/ per month. lt is further submitted that interest @12'k per annum awarded by Commissioner, is in accordance with the lavt' laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court judgments, in Pratap Narain Singh Deo u. Sriniuas Sabo,ta and anothe'o , Kerala State Electricity Board & Another u' Vatsala K. &' Another a Oriental Insurance Compang Limited u. Sibg George and otherss.

7. Heard learned counsels, perused the record, considered the submissions.

8. Deceased r/as an employee (helper) under the employment of Opposite Party No. 1, on bore u'ell lorry bearing No AP 29BH O8 12. Ex.AS is a copy of certificate of registration of the vehicle which was a Rig Mounted Heavy Motor Vehicle in the name of '(rgze) r scc zgs ' (rgss) e scc zsa t atn 2ot2 sc a1a+ 5 JAK,J ( M.A No.1052 of 2014 one Alla Krishna Reddy. Vehicle rvas having a ,alid insurance cover from 17.O3.2O71 to 16.O3.2O12. 9 . On 20 .O2 .2O 12, when the deceased with rther labourers were proceeding on bore r.r,ell lorry from K i kkireni Village towards Annaram Village side at about 0 I :3C p. M, when the vehicle reached Racha Kaluva situated at outsl. i .ts of Kakkireni Village, labourers including the deceased 'r:re lifting the electric wires with a wooden stick and at thrr point of time, electric u,ire fell on the bore 'a'ell lorry and d,: :eased suffered electric shock and died on the spot.

10. Crime No. 17 of 2Ol2 came to be register: 1 in the police Station of Ramannapet under Section 1'4 of Cr.p.C. Commissioner on the basis of Ex.Al (FIR copv. Ex.A2 (lnquest Report), Ex.A4 copy of final proceedings sub.r itted by police Station, Ramannapet to Tahsildar cum-Execut . e Magistrate of Ramannapet, the claim petition and chief a[ .davit of AWl, opined that cleceased u,as helper on the said bor I well lorry and suffered with eiectric shock causing his instant:-ieous death as recorded in the exhibits. Post mortem report indicates that 6 JAK,J C.M.A.No.1052 of 2014 - deceased died due to electric shock. Owner frled a counter affidavit, admitted the employment of deceased as helper on his bore well lorrv on payment of wages and admitted the accidenta-l death during the course and out of employment Considering these facts, Commissioner held that deceased was employed under employment of Opposite Party No. 1 and suffered the accident in the course and out of employment and died due to electric shock

11. Ex.A7 is the insurance policy copy, vehicle was insured as on the date of accident. Insuralce company collected al ainount of Rs.B00/- towards basic liability premium. As per Section V7 (l\(c) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is a statutory liability to cover the risk of employees under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Amount collected by the Insurance Company tor.vards the basic liability premium covers the risk of employees, employed in connection with the operation of the said vehicle. As the deceased was held to be a rvorkman, the statutory liability of the Insurance Company exists to indemnify the risk of workmen. Commissioner rightly 7 JAK,J ( M.A.No.1052 of 2014 held that the Insurance Company is liable to pir', though it has been contended by the Insurance Company thzr bore well lorry was not involved in any mishap or accident.

12. Commissioner rejected the claim of the rpplicants that the deceased was being paid wages @ Rs.5,0007 - per month by the owner, on the ground that the applicant dic -rot furnish any evidence in support of the wages claimed. CorrL: rissioner relied on the Minimum Wages hxed by the Governc ent of Andhra Pradesh in empioyment of Public Motor Trarsport IN G.O.Ms.No.B3 and fixed the rt age of decease: (helper) to be Rs.2,645/- per month, added VDA amount of Rs 1,8 1 1.25 paise per month as notified by the Commissioner 'r Labour. Totai wage amount was arrived at as Rs.4,456.25 pais: per month for the purpose of calcuiating compensation. Age .r eS taken as 25 years, as recorded in the inquest panchanama l )x.A2) and post mortem (Ex.A3), as there was no contra eviden: r, the deceased age was taken as 25 years. Commissioner z rrived at total compensation of Rs.4,85,769/-, with regard t,r the interest @ l2oh per arrnum frorn 22.03.2012 till the darrr of realization. 8 JAK,J C.M.A.No.1052 of 2014 - Commissioner rightly placed reliance on the judgment /' Oriental Insurance Compang Limited u. Sibg George and 1n others (5 supra). This Court does not find any illegality inlrrmity in the order of the Commissioner dated 11.06.2014 and this Court is not inclined to upset any of the hndings of the Commissioner.

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in GoIIa Rojonna and Others u. Diaisional Manager and Anotherc, held as follows: " 10. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workrnen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal onl,v to substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has venLured to re appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis. The whole exercise made by the I'ligh Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act."

14. The said principle enunciated in Golla Rajanna's case (6 supra) has been reiterated in judgment of Fulma,ti Dhramdeu Yadau and another u. Neu India Assurance Co. Ltd. and dnotherT.ln the facts and circr-rmstances of the case, '1zorz1 t scc as 'zoz: scc ontine SC 1105 - 9 ]AK,] No.1052 of 2014 C.N4 ^ no question of law, much less a substantial orL' ' arises for consideration. i5. For reasons aforesaid, Civil Miscellanec'rt Appeal devoid of merits, same is liable to be disn-r : sed ancl is accordingll' dismissed No order as to costs 1S Miscellaneous applications pending, if anr shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SDr- B.SATYAVATHI J()I {T REGISTRAR './ t,- SI: :TION OFFICER L 1 The Commissioner for Employees Compensation and DepL y Commissioner of Laboucl: T. Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavanam, Ft C Cross Roads, Hyderabad.(with records)

2. One CC to Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to Sri P. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4 One CC to Ms. T.Padmaja, (Amrcus) Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies VI I/PSI- P*L HIGH COURT DATED: 2510712025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.1052 of 2014 i i,'.,i- :- : :r. J. ,, -- ao() 6 tiB ?u6 t1' )\ * -.;(,.)' D!SMISSING CMA @e*t rr\o\'6