The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : Counsel for the Respondents : SRI P.v.B. NANDANA SARMA Rep. SRl. KOTA SUBBA RAO The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT SRI. AKKAM ESHWAR i-l THE HON'BLE SHRT JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CTVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3O1 OF 2OL4 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated 31.12.2013 passed in W.C.No.219 of 2011 on the file of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation and Deputy Ccrnmissioner of Labour-I. T. Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavanam, RTC Cross Roads, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Mr. Kota Subba Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company, and N4r. P.V.B. Nandana Sarma, learned counsel represe;rting Mr. A. Eshwar, learned counsel for tire respondents.

3. Brief facts: The appellant herein is Opposite Party No.2 and respondents are applicants before the Commissioner. Applicants are wife, sons and parents of deceased- Applicants claim that deceased was a driver of Tractor bearing No.AP 23TK TR 1983 under the employment of 2 \ JAK J C.MA.Na.30l 2014 Opposite Party No. I - B. Narsaiah. On 06.11.2010, the deceased during the course of his employment, while proceeding on the said Tractor from Upperpally to Bibipet, dashed against a compound wall and a minor child. The deceased sustained a blunt injury in the abdomen. He was taken to Sadana Hospital, Kamareddy, his condition deteriorated, he was shifted to B.B.R. Hospital, Balanagar. While undergoing treatment, he died on

11.11.2010. A case in Crime No.55 o[ 2Ol0 for the offence under Section 337 of IPC came to be registered, later altered to Section 3O4-A ol IPC. Tractor was insured vide Policy No.0023002540 13, valid from 21.10.2O1O to 20.LO.2OLI. Applicants claimed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.

4. Learned Commissioner examined AWs.l and 2 and marked Exs.A 1 to A 1 I on behalf of applicants and examined RW. 1 ald markcd Exs.B2 to 85 on behalf of appellant/Insurance Companr' - I 3 ]AK. J C.M.A.No.-101 20l t

5. lrarned Commissioner, after considering the facts, examining the witnesses, exhibits marked, awarded a compensation of Rs.5,56,L31 /- with interest @ l2o/o per annum to be paid from 07.72.2010 till the date of realization. The said order is under challenge 111 this appeal.

6. Learnr:d Standing Counsel for appellant/ lnsurance Company has not disputed the factum of accident and the factum of death. It is submitted that the deceased was not under the employment of Opposite Party No.l, the owner- B. Narsaiah . It is further submitted that at the time of accident, the driver did not possess a valid driving licence. It is also submitted that medical expenses granted to the dcceased i.e., Rs.71,88O/- are excess and not supported by an_v receipts.

7. [t is submitted that as per records, only receipts for Rs.40,O0O/- are liled, it is denied that the deceased \\'as an inpatient. It is further submitted that the Tractor was not under ttre control of its owner and was held bv one I I I E 4 JAK, J C.l'{.'1.No.301 2014 Mr. Kishan and as such there was no employer-employee relationship between Opposite Parfy No.1 and the deceased. It is also submitted that in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is no denia-l as ' to the employment of the deceased. Therefore, it can be inferred that the Tractor was not under the control of owner - B, Narsaiah, but was under the control of Kishan.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submitted that deceased met with an accident during the course of emploSrment arrd was treated at B.B.R. Hospital from O7.lL.2OLO till 11.11.2010. It is further submitted that the attendants paid an arnount ol Rs.7i,88O/- towards inpatient Iinal bill. That Ex.A9 are the bunch of original medical bills, Exs.A6 to A9 are issued by hospital to prove the fact that deceased was treated at B.B.R. Hospital, and the amount of Rs.71,88O/- is true and correct. It is further submitted that AW.2, the Doctor of B.B.R. Hospital, was examined and in his cross examination, he stated that receipts were issued for every payment and that receipts for Rs.40,0O0/- were filed. ;"1 5 JAK. J C.MA.No.30l 2011 9 . karned counsel submitted that the contention advaxced by the Insurance Company that Opposite Pafty No.1 (B. Narsaiah) did not respond to the legal notice (Ex.B3) can lead to the inference that the deceased was not working under Opposite Palty No.1 is baseless. It is further submitted that driver had a valid licence and that at the time of accident, it was lost. It is also submitted that deceased sustained blunt inj ury to abdomen for which he was treated as an inpaiient vide IP No.30126 and MLC No.7644 and underwent surgery. lO. [t is submitted that as per Ex.A6, t]re deceased had repeated cardiac arrest and CPR was done as per ACLs protocol. It rs further submitted that gangrenous bowel q'ith septiccmia shock lead to cardiac arrest, (an outcome of bltrnt rrljrrr-\, to :rbdomen). That the medical expenditure incurred for tl-rc treatment and for medications are true (pcr exhibit s). Hence, the contentioRs advanced for Insur:rncc Q,rmpan_v are without any basis. 6 JAK. J C.M.l.No.30l 2011 i-i

11. It is submitted that the Commissioner arrived at a conclusion that the wages drawn by deceased to be Rs.4,999.50 ps. and the same is proper. That the Commissioner having considered the entire record, arn arded the compensation, which cannot be faulted.

12. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the submissions.

13. On 06.11.2010 the deceased was driving Tractor bearing No.AP 23 TK TR 1983 from Upperpally to Bibipet, the Tractor dashed against compound wall and a minor child. The driver sustained blunt injury in the abdomen and was shifted to a hospital at Karnareddy. When his condition became serious, he was shifted to B.B.R. Hospital, Balanagar, and was admitted as an inpatient upto 1i.11.2010, vide IP No.3Oi26 and MLC No.7644. He rvas operated, after undergoing operation, he r'r'as being treated in the hospital.

14. Ex.Al is FIR copy bearing Crime No.55 of 2010, Ex.A2 is inquest report, Ex.A3 is charge sheet, Ex.A4 is a 7 JAK, J C.MA.No.30l 2011 copy of post mortem examination report, Exs.A6 to A9 are documents issued by hospital i.e., Ex.A6 is death summary, Ex.A7 - bunch of original prescriptions, Ex.A8 is original l'rospital bill for Rs.71,880/- and Ex.A9 are bunch of medical bills lor arnount of Rs.59,346/-. It was contended that the amount of Rs.71,880/- is not true, as receipts for an amount of Rs.4O,OOO/- are only filed. That Rs.71,88O/ - was exaggerated.

15. In the cross examination of AW.2, Dr. G. Kiran, a doctor at B.B.R. Multi Specialty Hospital (at Balanagar), he stated that they did not issue any bills on higher side for quantum of compensation. Ex.A8 is the original hospital bill for Rs 7l,BB0/- and Ex.A9 are bunch of original medical bills for Rs.59,346/-. In the evidence at the time of cross e.ramination, AW.2 was not confronted witll Exs.AS and A.9. Thet' remained unchallenged. In the absence of anv contra statements elicited with respect to Exs.A8 and A9, it cannot be concluded that Ex.A8 original bill for Rs.7l.88O/. is exaggerated and Ex.A9, bunch of original medical bills lor Rs.59,346/-, cannot be held to be 8 JAK, J C.M.t.No.3ol 2011 wrongly claimed. In the absence of any contra evidence elicited in the cross examination of AW.2 with regard to original medical bills i.e., Exs.A8 and A9, addition of Rs.7i,88O/- and Rs.59,346/- to the wages calculated i.e., the amount of compensation awarded cannot be disputed.

16. Ex.A10 is a certificate of registration of Tractor and Ex.A5 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report. As per Exs.AlO and A5, the Tractor is registered in the name of Opposite Party No. l-8. Narsaiah. Ex.B4 is postal receipt, Ex.BS is the statements recorded by the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The Insurance Company failed to examine the persons, who gave the statements or the officer, who recorded the statements. In the absence of such evidence, disbelieving Exs.B4 and 85, by Commissioner, which are not substantive evidence ir-r the el'e of lag, is proper.

17. Counsel for appellant-Insurance Company has not confronted the statements made before the police under Section 16 L Cr.P.C. In the absence of any such confront 9 JAK. J C.M.l.No.30l _2011 during evidence, statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., cannot be considered, as contended.

18. AW. i in cross examination stated that the driving licence of the deceased rvas lost in the aceident, Opposite Party No.2 did not lead any evidence to show that the deceased was not having a valid driving licence. As to employer--employee relationship is concerned, Exs.AlO and A5 are suffice to prove that Mr. B. Narsaiah is the owner (Opposite Party No. 1 ) and that the deceased workrnan sustained injuries during the course of employment on the Tractor bearing No.AP 23 TK TR 1983. A me!'e statement that the Tractor uas under the control of one Mr. Kishan entrusted the Trarctor to the deceased, without substantiation cannot in anv way prove that employer- employee relationship \\,as not existing between thc Opposite Perrty No. I and the deceased. Such statements are self-serving in nature, such statements have to be substantiatt-'d br- cr.idencc. No such evidence is placed on record to disbelie'u,e Dxs.A 10 and A5. In the absence of T ! t t I _10 JAK J C.M.A.No.30l 20la \- ( such evidence, placing reliaxce on statements is improper and not valid.

19. Ex.A6 is the death summary, it is recorded that tlle deceased died on 11.11.2010 at 8.08 A.M., of repeated cardiac arrest and the blunt injury to abdomen with gangrenous bowel with septicemia shock. It is recorded in the order that the deceased was an inpatient with IP No.30126 and MLC No.7644. No illega1ity, much less perversity is seen from the order of Commissioner. Appeal is devoid of merits.

20. The Honble Apex Court, while dealing with the scheme of the Workmen's Compensation Act in Go IIa Rajanna and Others a. Dlulslonal Manager and Anotherl , hcld as follows: " I0. Undel the scheme of the Act, the Workmcn's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Padiament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this cmcial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on ' (to r7) r\(cli I JlK, J C.tt{ A.No.30l 2014 percentage of disability for which aiso there is no basis. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act."

21. The law laid dorvn by the Hon'bie Apex Court in I Golla RaJanna (1 supra) is reiterateri by the Hon'ble Apex Court in .Ft.tlmati Dhrantdea Yad.au dnd Anothe" os, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and dftother2.

22. In the facts and cilcumstances of the case, no question of law, much less a substantial one, arises for consideration. On this grounC too, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed

23. Fcr reasons aforesaicl, appcai being devoid of merits, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/. NAYANI CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR \ tl6af scr anLiw $ctrcs \ \ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Commissioner for Employees' Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour-|, T.Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavanam, RTC Cross Roads at Hyderabad. One CC to SRl. KOTA SUBBA RAO Advocate tOpUCl One CC to SRl. AKKAM ESHWAR Advocate tOpUCl 2 3 4. Two CD M- .Copies HIGH COURT DATED:1110612025 I JUDGMENT GMA.No.301 of 2014 ,t HE Sr4 2 4 JrN 2026 i o C) t I I ! I DISMISSING THE APPEAL %.