The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Stay of the Award in W.C.NO.56/13 dt.18.03.2015 by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation & Asst. Commissioner of Labour-lV, Hyderabad and the disbursement of the amount deposited by the petitioner/Appellant, pending the appeal. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2015(CMAMP. NO: 1702 OF 2015) Between: 1- Rehena Begum, wo late ti/ohd Abdul Nabi, aged about 37 yrs, occ Household

2. Farhana Elegum, D/o late Mohd Abdur Nabi, aged 11 yrs, occ student 3. Ruheena Beg^um, D/o late [/ohd Abdul Nabi, aged 7 yrs, Occ: Student, All are R/o Plot lrlo 135/135, Anjaiah Nagar, Gachibow-li, Seriingampally Mandal, RR District. ...Petitioners/Respondent No.1 & 2 AND 1 United lndia lnsurance Co Ltd., Rep Floor l)osnett Bhavan, Tilak Road, H by its Regional Manager, 6-3-680, 2ND

2. saniy;r Noor, S/o sandeepkunlar, R/o 4-B6g/ABK, opp. Deepak rheatre Rajenrjranagar Ranga Reddy District. . . . RespondenUAppellant (R2 is not necessary party in this petition) ...RespondenURespondent No.4 Petition L'nder Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in 'the affidavit f iled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay passed in CMA MP NO.557 of 2015 by permitting the Petitioners/Reslrondent nos 1 to 3 to withdraw the compensation amount in the interest of justice. Counsel for ther Appellant: SRI A V K S PRASAD Counsel for ther Respondents: The Court made,the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA c.M.A.NO. oF'2()15 JUDGMENT: This appeal is prelerred by the appellant'Opposite Party No.2 ur.Ce; Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, L')23, against the order, dated 18.O3.2O15 passed in W.C.No.56 of 2Ol3 by the Commissioner For Employees'Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-lV, Hyderabad (herein after referred to as "the Authoriry'').

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties wiil be referred to as they arrayed before the Authority as the applicants and opposite party Nos.l and 2. 3: Brief facts of the case are that the applicants have filed an application under the provisions of the Act, tg23 ctaiming compensation for the death of one Mohd. Abdui Nabi (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") claiming compensation against the employer of the deceased i.e. owner of the Car bearing No.P 28 TV 3669 and also against the insurer of the said car, United India lnsurance Company Limited, Hyderabad. It is stated that the d.eceased was an employee as driver under the employment of opposite party No.1. During the course of 2 \.''- cfra_284_2Ots employnrent on 72.03.2013 while he was on duty as a driver of - the said 'lar and he had parked the said Car by the side of road at Gachiborvli and died in the Car. It is further stated that the deceased was on dut.y and driving the said vehicle at the relevant time anc[ as the death of the deceased was occurred during the course of his employment the applicants liled the application against the opposite parties. It is further contended that the deceasecl was being paid wages of Rs.6,OOO/- per month by the lst Opposite, Party and that he was aged about 35 years at the time of his death. Accordinglv, the claimants have sought compensation of Rs.6,OO,000/- along with interest at the rate of 72o/o per annum.

4. ThLe lst Opposite Party did not appear before the Commissioner to contest the case. The 2nd Opposite Party filed a counter denying the averments made in the claim petition. tt is specificzdly contended that the deceased was not an "employee" within t.he meaning of the Act, and denied the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the lst Opposit: Party. It further denied that the death occurred during the course of employment. The 2nd Opposite Party also disputed the age and income of the deceased as stated by the claimants. It was further contended that the deceased did not possess a valid and effi:ctive d.riving licence at the time of the alleged accident. 3 cmo_2u-2015 Moreover, the 2nd Opposite Party stated that as per Section 134(c) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 it is the mandatory duty of the insured (1st Opposite Party) to furnish particulars of the insurance policy, as well as the di.te, time, and place of the accident, and the detarls ..f the injured/deceased. It was contended that tl'e allegations made in the claim petition are only for the purpose of claiming compensation and that the applicants are not entitled to the compensation claimed and prayed to dismiss the application'

5. During the course of enquiry on behalf of applicants A.W.1 was examined and Exs.Al to 10 were marked and on behalf of 2"d opposite party, Administrative officer was examined as R.w.1 and Junior Assistant, Ofhce of the RTA was examined as R.W.2 and Exs.Bl and 82 and Exs.Xl and X2 were marked on their behalf'

6. The learned Authority after hearing both parties and considering the entire evidence on record, held that the applicants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,41,891 /-. The lst and 2nd opposite Parties were accordingly directed to deposit the said amount along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from

13.04.2013 till the date of realization.

7. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Authority, the insurance company preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:- ,.-,_ o:,,-- 4 cmo-284_2015 (i) that the learned Authority did not consider the fact that the deceased was not having vatid and effective driving licence as on the d;lte of accident. (ii) that the iearned Authority before coming to conclusion that the deceased was the driver of the 1"t opposite part5r, ought to have nor-iced that the police did not even record the statement of the 1't opposite Party during their investigation. The applicants did not cven file the employment certillcate or salary certificate of the deceased issued by the 1.t opposite party evidencing that the deceasecl died during the course of his employment under the lst oppositr: Party. [n the absence of crucial evidence, the learned Authority have erred in coming to a conclusion that the deceased died during the course of employment under the 1st opposite party and opp,rsite part5r Nos. 1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation.

8. Hr:ard Mr. A.v.K.s. prasad, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents. I have perused the entire rrraterial placed on record. Now the points that arise for consideration before this Court are: " 1. whether the learned Authority committed any error in avrarding the compensation to the respondents, if So, whether the lnsurance Company is liable to pay compensation, if so, to what extent,,? ,// .r/,/ , 5 cdo_284_201 5 -

2. Whether the order passed by the learned Authority liable to be set aside? g. The main grievance of the appellant before this Court is that there was no employer-ernployee relationship between the deceased and C:,pc:'ite Part5r No.1 and that the death of the deceased did not occur during the course of employment. It is also contended that the deceased was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident

10. In respect of the said contentions, I have carefully perused the entire material placed before this Court. The findings recorded by the learned Authority clearly established that, as on the date of the accident the deceased was in the vehicle. decensed was It is also baar, " established that he was engaged in driving the said Car and while resting in the driver's seat, he suffered chest pain and was unable to move from the car to seek medical assistance or inform anyone' Ex.A2, which is the final report filed by the appellant, it further reveals that the deceased had gone to SMS Battery Shop and while parked in front of the shop, suffered a heart attack and succumbed to death while resting in the driver's seat. Furthermore, the post- mortem report indicates that the cause of death was head injury associated with ischemic heart disease. It is not in dispute that the deceased died of a heart attack. It is also admitted by the opposite 5 cmo,2u 2015 parties that the dead boy of the deceased rvas found inside the vehicle, which was insured with the opposite parties. From the record, it is evident that the deceased died during the course of his employrnent, even thotrgh the vehicle was parked at the time. conside,ring the above circumstarices, it can be safely concluded that thr: death occurred during the course of employment under resporrc:ent No.tlo,P No.l. Admittedly, the vehicle belonged to ,,: opposite Party No.1 and it is not in dispute that the deceased was employt:d as a driver by the l"t opposite party. To substantiate their contentions, no rebuttal evidence is placed on record b.v the oppositr: parties. opposite party No.l, who is the owner of the vehicle, did not examine himself or produced any evidence to counter the claims made by the applicants. 1'1. Upon perusal of the findings of the learned Authority, this court finds no reason to interfere with the said findings as the same ar-e supported by the material evidence placed on record by the applicants. tt is also established that the deceased was holding a valid LMV (non-transport) driving licence as evidenced by Ex.A6. The ter;timony of R.w.2 further confirms that the deceased possessed a valid driving licence as on the date of the incident. Therefo-:e, this court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal and the order passed by the learned Authority, including 7 /vfltu cna_284_2015 the quantum of compensation and the apportionment of liability. requires no interference. For the reasons and circumstances stated above, both the points are answered in favour of the applicants and as against the appellant. L2. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order passed by the learned Authority in w.c.No.56 of 2or3, dated

18.O3.2015. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed SD/. NAYANI CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUTY REGIS ,/TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER To, Commissioner of Labour - lV Hyderabad

1. The Commissioner for Employee's Compensation a 2. One CC to Srin V[i prasad' Advocate [OPUCI 3. Two CD CoPies Assistant ABK /PSL w HIGH COURT DATED: 21108t2025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.284 of 201S 1)() t * ths S c 1 I Hi\R ?026 * DISMISSING THE CMA WITHOUT CO$TS @fd' &r-