High Court · 2025

Judgment

This civil miscellaleous appeal is filed aggrieved by the order clated 05. l2.2ol4 in W.C.No.S1 of 2Ol2 on the file of the Coramissioner for Employees' Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of l,abour-Il : T. Anjarah Karimika Sankshema Bhavanarn, R.T.C., Cross Roads, Hyclerabad.

2. Heard Mr. N.J. Sunil Krimar, learnr:d Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellalt, Mr. Viswanathula Jagan Mohan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. Brief facts: Appellant herein is Opposite Party No.2-lnsurance Company and respondent No.1 is applicant (mother of the deceased driver-J. Rajesh) and respondent No.12 is Opposite Party No.I-Oq,ner of the vehicle. The deceased was working as driver on lorry bearing No.AP 24Y 4469. On L8.O5.2OL2, whilr: the driver 2 JAK, J C.M.A.No.46l of2015 along with cleaner were proceeding from Deccan Cement, Bhavanipuram, Neredrrcherla of Nalgonda District, with Ioad of cement, at about 5:00 P.M., rvhen the lorry reached Fire Station Centre, Chinthalapudi Village, West Gcdavari District, suddenly driver developed chest pain due to stress and strain and stopped the lorry. He rvas shifted to Government Hospital rvhere he died at 6:55 P.IvI., due to cardiac arrest. A case in Crime No.76 of 2O 12 rvas registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The said lorry was insured, valid from 18.01.2012 to 17.01.2013 covering the date of accident. The applicant, mother of the deceased, claimed compensation of Rs.7,00,O00/- along with interest @ 9o/o per annum. l,earned Commissioner, after considering the evidence of AW. 1, E-xs.Al to A7, awarded a cornpensation of Rs.6,66,6481 - with interest @ l2oh per annum from 19.06.2012 till the datc o[ rea]ization to be paid within 3O days from the date of receipt of the order.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for Insurance Company submitted that the Commissioner fell in error in arriving at the compensation. That, the Cornrnissioner took the age of i I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I 1 I I ! ! i t I : I I i I t I i i I i ! ! I I ; 7- ,/ /,/ 3 JAK, J C.MA.No.461 of 201s deceased as 29 years, disputed by the Insurance Company. It is further submitted that, the applicant was unable to prove the employer-employee relationship between Opposite Party No.l and the deceased driver. It is also submitted that the incident did not occur during the course of employment and as such the order of the Commissioner cannot be sustained.

5. On the other hand, Iearned counsel for applicant submitted that accident occurred on 18.05.2012 and the driver of the lorry suffered carciiac arrest due to stress and strajn of continuous driving of lorry and accident of death occurred during the course of emploJment. It is further submitted that the deceased was being paid wages of Rs.6,500/- per month and batta @ Rs.10O/- and he was contributing for the maintenance of his family and that he was aged 29 _vears as per the driving licence. It is also submitted that the Commissioner, instead of taking Rs.6,500/ per month as wages, considered an amount of Rs.4,319/- per month as the basic wage of the deceased and by addine V-D.A. arrived at a monthly wage of 4 J,IK. .t C mA.No.46l oI20l5 Rs.2,OO5.5O ps. on the basis of the Government of Andhra Pradesh in employment of public motor transport in vide G.O.Ms.No.83, dated 22.L l.2006.

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

7. Applicant is tlle mother of deceased. It is claimed that the deceased was working as a driver on a lorry bearing No.AP 24Y 4469 and was being paid an amount of Rs.6,500/- AS monthly wage with Rs. 100/- as batta On 18.05.2012, when the lorry was proceeding from Deccan Cement, Bhavanipuram, r.vith cement load, at 5:00 P.M., near Chinthalapudi Village, West Godavari District, deceased driver developed chest pain and stopped the lorry. Driver was shifted to Government Hospital, where he died at 6:55 P.M., due to cardiac arrest. Crime No.76 of 2O12 was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The lorry had a valid insurance from 18.01.2012 to 17.01.2013. B. Applicant was examined as AS/.I . An affidavit in lieu of chief evidence rvas filed. it is stated that her son rvhile : I I I I / ) J/lK, J C.M.A.No.16l oI20l5 trying to avoid a collision with a lorry coming in opposite direction, turned his lorry towards left side near Fire Station at Chinthalapudi Village. That, he suffered chest pain due to stress and strain of continuous driving, stopped the lorry and fell on the steering wheel. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Chinthalapudi Village.

9. AW.l was cross examined by Standing Counsel for Insurance. She stated that the cleaner informed her about the incident and he lodged a complaint. She further stated that her son was taken to Government Hospital and he collapsed in the hands of doctor. She accepted that complaint was given alter 22 hours of death ' She denieci that Exs.A I to ,A4 were created. She said that her son was driving the cement loaded lorry, but did not file the trip sheet.

10. It is observed from the order of the Commissioner that Insurance Company did not lead/adduce any evidence on their side. The right to adduce evidence and right for arguments u,as forfeited as the counsel for Insurance Company q'as not present though several opportunities 6 JAK. J C.MA.No.46l oI20l5 were provided on number of occasions when the matter was posted for evidence and arguments.

11. In the FIR (Ex.Al) and inquest panchanama (Ex.A2), it is reflected that the deceased was employed as a driver on the lorry, when the accident occurred on 18.05.2012 and that he was admitted to the Government Hospital for treatment for heartache which he suffered while driving. Ex.A3 post mortem report shows that the deceasecl died of cardiac alrest. A4 is the original driving licence valid upto 07.03.2015. Age of the deceased was taken as per the driving licence. Ex.A5 is the registration certificate and fitness certificate showing.that it is a goods carri.age (heary motor vehicle) in the namc of Kavuri Ravi. The cleaner (Chatla Anil) of lorry lodged FIR. From the FIR and the inquest panchanama, it was deduced by the Commlssroner that the deceased was emplcyed witJl Opposite Party No.1 There was no contra evidence adduced.

12. Nothing was placed on record by the Insurance Company to escape its liabilil-y. A valid insurance pclicl' exists as on t-he date oi accident. Ex.AS is a va,lid htn3ss t1 7 JAK, J l.M A.No a6t of 20ts t certifrcate and registration certificate. Commissioner, after considering the evidence on record, concluded that there was an employer - employee relationship and that the accident occurred during the course and out of employment.

13. Driving of a heavy motor vehicle (goods carriage) is a work, which induces heaqv stress anci strain. The stress and strain is caused dtte to ccntinuous driving of the vehicle. It rvas submitted by the counsel for applicant before the Commissioner that the deceased was driving the lorry since 15 days without anlr rest, which led to the chest pain and ultimately death of the deceased. It has been held by a catena of decisions that the nature of emploJament of a driver of a heary motor vehicle tras a close nexus with stress and strain, lcaciing to chest pain arising out of the continuous dt'iving ol heavy goods vehicle. The death of the driver is an 'untou'ard mishap' that occurred during the course and out of employment due to the stress and strain caused and can therefore be reasonably 8 J C.M.A.No.I6t ol20ts 'IK a. described as an 'accident, attributable to the nature of employment.

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court,s in pardm pal Slngh a, National Insurance Compang Ltmlted. and Anotherr held as follows: 'Applying the various principles laid down in the above decisions to thc facts of this case, we can validly conclude that there was CAUSAL CONNECTION to thl death of the deceased with that of his eEpl,oyment as a truck driver_ We carrnot lose sight of the fact that a 45 years old driver meets with his unexpected death, may be due ro heart failure while driving the vehicle from Delhi ro a distant place called Nimiaghat near Jharkhand which is about I lS2 kms. away from Delhi, would have delinitely undergone grave strain and stress duc to such long distance &iving. The deceased being a professional heavy vehicle -driver when undertakes the job of such driving as his regular avocation it can be safely held that such conitant driving of heary vehicle, being dependant solely upon his physical and mental resources & endurance, there was every rcason to assume that the vocation of driving was a materia_l contributory factor if not the sole cause that accelerated his unexpected death to occur which in:rll fairness should be held to be an untoward mishap in his life span. Such an trntoward mishap'can therefore be reasonably described as an 'accident' as having been caused solely attributable to the nature of employment indulged in with his employer which was in the course of such employer,s tradc or busincss. "

15. Learned Commissioner, ol-r the basis of the record, evidence adduced, exhibits marked, has rightly held that the Insurance Company was liable to pay the ' etR 20 t; sc gt,r /' j 9 JIK, J C l{..4 No.46l ol20l5 compensation. Having perused the order, thrs Court is of the opinion that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed.

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the scheme of the Workmen's Compensation r\ct in @II4 RaJanna and Others u. Dlvislonal Manager dnd Anotherz, held as follows: '10. Under the scheme of the Act, the workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parlament has thought it llt to restrict the scope o[ the appeal only to substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the Hrgh Court has missed this crucial question of timited jurisdiction and has ve ntured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own lindings on percentage of disability for r,r'hich also thcrc is nr basis. The whole exercise made by the High Court is nol within t}le competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act." t t

17. The same principle/view is reiterated in the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in Fulmati Dhramdeu Yadaa dnd Another v. Neut India Assurance Co. Ltd., and Anothets. Needless to state, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration On this ground too, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. '?1zort1 r sccns r 2023 SCC Online SC I 105 I i I I I I 1 i i i \ To, l0 J,IK, J C M.A.No.16l of20l5

18. Having perused the order of the Commissioner, this Court is of the opiliion that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is devoid of rnerits, is liable to be dismissed. t9 For reasons aforesaid, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, il any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// d/. T. VIJAY KUMAR PUTYREGI

1. The Commissioner for Employees Compensat Commissioner of Labour at Anjaiah Karmika Sankshema Cross Roads at Hyderabad. (with records, if any) One CC to Mr. N.J. Sunit Kuma Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Mr. Viswanathula Ja gan Mohan, Advocate [OpU Two CD Copies r 2 3 4 Kam/gh (h- CTION OFFICER and Assistant Bhavanam, RTC cI HIGH COURT DATED: 1 3 lOGl2O25 JUDGMENT CMA.No.451 ot 2015 '/'t' /1"" ! lr_ -- /. 0 i li[\i ) ,.) t.') ' '^t''..t.. ./ .i 2ffi iji ;,tt ,, . ,4/ -)r \ i i i ! I i I DISMISSING OF THE CMA lA an\G\z> 6