United lndia lnsurance Company Limited v. owner of Lo'y beglrn-g- N.o

HON"BLE SRI IUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO C]VIL MEIIITT APP NO .17 0F 2021 Heard sri V.Venkata Rami Reddy, rearned counser for the appellant/.nsurance company and sri G.Chandrasekhar Reddy Gopi Reddy, lea.ned counser for respondent Nos.1 and 2/ appricants.

2. This appeal has been filed assailing the orders passed in E.C.No.26/ )-077(F), dated 22.06.2000 on the file of Commissioner of Employees' Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of [.abour, Irlalgonda ({or short, 'the Tribunal'). The said matter arises under the Workmen's Contpensation Act, 7922.

3. It is settlecr principle of law that the substantiar question of law has to be lcoked into and the appeilant/opposite parfy No.2 has raised the following sr:bstantial questions of law: i) wh.ther the deceased is a workman within the meaning of the Workmen,s Compensation Act and whether deceased cried during the course of employment under the opposite party No.1 ? .f .v 7(./ l 0l :tt: l t il.l ^u. 2 ii) Whether the deceased conles under the employee and employer relationship between the deceased and the owner of the lorcy, who is opposite party No.1 since both are natural brothers ?

4. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased-Donuru Kiran Reddy was working as Driver with the respondent No.3/opposite parry No.1 on lorry bearing registration No.AP-30T-1224 and the deceasecl being driver alleged to be drawing Rs.10,000 /- pe, month besides Rs.200/- per duy as batha. On the fateful duy i.e., on 1,8.08.2017 the deceased was proceeding from Hyderabad to Kakinada Port with metal load and on 19.08.2 077 ataround L.00 p.m., the lorry turned turtle and as the cabin of the lorry was totally crushed, the deceased died on the spot by succumbing to the injuries and a case was registered as Crime No.Z:nZ 12017 on the file of P.S. Peddapuram of East Godavari District under Section 304-4 IPC. It is subrnitted that the deceased was aged about 26 yeats and was possessing valid driving licence and working as driver and the applicants i.e., mother and father, who are the dependents of the deceased, has filed the said claim for an amount of Rs.L0,00,000/- and it is submitted that the policy was in force with the appellant/ : : I 3 opposite earty No.2 and it was stated by the opposite party No.L that an additi<>nal amount of Rs.100/- was paid for insuring the driver s('R..t l'MA No.l7 ol 202 I

5. The, Tribunal after elaborate enquiry and lrial was pleased to frame the issues and the sum and substances of the said issued are, i) V/hether the deceased is a workman within the n:reaning of the Act and whether deceased died during the course of employment under the opposite party No.L ? ii) \{hether the applicants are entitled to compensation on the death of the deceased ?

6. As seen from the order and decree in E.C.No.26 of 2077(F), as many as Exs.Al. to A9 were marked and P.Ws.1 and 2 are let-in evidence and the Tribunal after considering the scrutiny of evidence of P.Ws.L and 2 and also Exs.A1 to ,A9 has categorically held that the deceased wasworking as a driver with the opposite party No.1 Though the owner of the lorry bearing registration No.TS-30T-7224 was the r:al brother of the deceased, there cannot be any doubt that the decee sed being younger brother cannot be coming under the purview of the Workmen and it is also pertinent to note that the opposite party No.l was having two lorries and that the deceased was gainl'ully employed as workman with the opposite party No.1 , -, ( I I .\r(?..,/ ('MA No.l7 oJ2ltll (- 4 was not doubtful and the appellant/opposite parfy No.2 has not produced any evidence to show that the deceased was not employed with opposite parry No.L and the Tribunal after appreciating the facts on record has categorically held that the deceased was working as driver under the opposite party No.1 and falls within the definition of workman and as such, after appreciating all the facts on record and the facts that led to the accident on 18.08.2077, wherein the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot on the fateful day and the Tribunal, having found that the deceased was a workman under the definition of Workmens' Compensation Act and against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-, has fixed the liability on the opposite parry Nos.1 and 2jointly and severally and awarded a compensation of I{s.8,67,640 / -.

7. Perusal of the order and decree, the said case in E.C.No.26 of 2017(F), the Tribunal has examined all the documents and scrutinized the evidence of P.Ws.1 and2 properly and by categorical finding the Tribunal held that the deceased was a workman under the definition of Workmen's Compensation Act and entitled to be granted compensation as accident took place during the course of employment on the fatefut day of 19.07 .2017 and this Court feels that \ t I i sCR'.i CMA l,lo.l7 oI202t 5 theappeltant/oppositePartyNo.2hasnotcontrovertedthewell considered findings of the Tribunal and this court feels that there is nothing on r,:cord to interfere with the well considered order and decreepasserlb)'th"Tribunal'Assuch'assubstantialquestionof law is not involved in the present appeal and all the questions are factual in nature, which are already decided by the Tribunal' the present appeal deserves to be dismissed' S.Therefr>re,inviewoftheabovefindings,theAppealofthe appellant/opposite party No.2 fails and is accordingly dismissed' The order and decree passed in E.c.No .2.6 of 2017(F) dated 22.06'2020 are hereby confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs' Pendirrg miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand closed SD/.N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR (e SECTION OFFICER a //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour at Nalqonda

2. One C'c to sRr."V. vENKATARAMI REDDY, {d_v9-cg!_eJ9.qu9l 5. One i,C io SRl. CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY GOPIREDDY, Advocate 4. Two C;D Copies loPU(]l v kUYSA t{i HIGH COURT DATED:1011012025 JUDGMENl' CMA.No.17 ot2021 i_1 \ () t * THE S n U 3 i{ RA Trnl * DISMISSING THE CMA WTHOUT CI)STS a v J v $o