High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the execution of orders passed in WC.No. 36/2005, dated 30.7.2007 by the Commissioner for workmen's Compensation and Asst. Commissioner of Labour Circle lll, Sri T. Anjaiah Karmika Sankshema Bhavan, RTC Cross Roads at Hyderabad. Gounsel for the Appellant: SRl. KOTA SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : SRI AJAY KUMAR MADISETTY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT I I I l I , I THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.634 of 2Ol4 JUDGMENT: This Civii Miscellareous Appeal is hled aggrreved by the order dated 30.07.2OO7 passed in W.C.No.36 of 2005 on the file o1- the Cornmissioncr for Workmen's Compensation and Ass istant Com missioner of Labour-lll : Sri T.Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavan : R.'1.C. Cross Roads, Hyderabad (for short 'the Commissior-rer'). 2, Heard Mr. I(ota Subba Rao, learned Standing Counsel for appcliar-rt Insurance Company and Mr. M Aj ay Kumar, learr-red counsr:l lor r<.sponclcn's.

3. Applic:rnts are the legal heirs of deceased. lt is claimed tfiat the deceased s-as ri,orking as a labourer on lorry bearing No.AP 7V I 114, or-r payment of u,ages (4 Rs.2,500/- per month. On 12.11.2OO4, in the evening, deceased along with his friends boarded the lorry at Kushaiguda and near Cheeryal cross roads, u,hen the lorry was driven in rash and negligent manner, 2 the deceased fell from the lorry and sustained head injury. He \\as shifted to Vrj aya hospital, Nagaram at I 9:00 hours immediately after the accident,. there he u,as declared brought dead. The vehicie was insured with Opposite party No.2 (New India Assurance company Ltd.). At the time of the accident, the insurance policy was valid from 12.O3.2OO4 to I1.03.2005. A case in Crime No.21.5 of 2OO4 under Section 304 A of IpC ri,as registered in p. S. Keesara. The applicants claimed r.r,ages @3,OOO/- per month. The compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from Opposite Party No. 1 (owner) and Opposite party No.2 was sought. The Commissioner after examining the witnesses i.e., AW1, RWi and RW2 and considered Exs.A1 to Ag, Exs.B1, 82 and D1, awarded the compensation. The Commissioner awarded a compensation of Rs.2,52,674/_ with interest @;i27o pa, the said order is under challenge.

4. Learned counsel for Insurance Company has not disputed the lact of the accident, death and validity of the policy. It is submitted that the deceased had boarded the said lorry with his friends at Kushaigud" pointed out that investigation 1,..S, -ti:*;F'RiFiqtr I 3 re\realed,thatthedeceasedwasworkingasapart-timeplumber and attended plumbing $/ork and got on to the lorry on 12.11.2OO4. That the Commissioner erred in concluding the deccased \\:as emplo)'cd as labourer on lorry' It is further subrnitted that lt s'as recorded in Police investigation that he \r/as part-time plumber. It is contended that the deceased could not have been termed as a labourer, r,vhen recorcled as part time plumber and also contended that no proof was adduced as labourer on the lorr1 . It is submitted that Commissioner noted the fact that 5. deceased boarded tl-re lorn, involved in the accident with his fncnds ancl coulcl uot ltave aivarded thc compensalion' Hence' the order of the Commissioner is bad in law and has to be set aside. 6 . Learnecl counsel for applicants / respondents submitted that though the deceased q,as referred as a plumber and boarded the lorn, u,ith others, the said fact is only a reflection in the F IR and thc Insurance Company has not placed any 4 .:| evidence to disprove the contention that there was no employer employee relationship between the owner and deceased. It is submitted that the owner i.e., Opposite party No.1 deposed before the Commissioner (as RW2) and admitted that the deceased was working as a labourer on payment of wages @ Rs.2,5O0/- (not as claimecl at Rs.3,000/ ) and that on the fateful day, deceased was on duty as labourer. lt is also submitted that learned counsel for Insurance Company cross examined the owner of lorry but couid not elicit anything contrary to employer employee relationship. It is further submitted that the owner specrhcaily stated that he had employed the deceased a year back, that the insurance policy u,as renewed from time to time. It is lastly submitted that the Commissioner rightly concluded that the evidence of RW2 could not be disbelieved. It is urged that the order of the Commissioner is proper and needs no interference.

7. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 5

8. Deceasecl rvas aged 25 years. On 12 11 2004, he got on to the lorry bearing No.AP 7V 11 14, with others at Kushigrrda' When the lorrv reached Cheeryal cross roads, due to rash and negligent drivrng, deceased fe11 from the lorry and sustained head injury. He u'as taken to Vrjaya Hospital, Nagaram and declared died at 17:00 hours on 1'2 ll 2OO4' g. Lorrl was insured bv a policv and valid lrom l2'O3 2OO4 to 11.03.2005 u'ith policv No.610409/3ll03 lOTOS4 lnsurance Con-rpany collected premium under the Workmens' Compensation Act to cover the risk of three employees which includes the risk of deceased as labourer' The driver lr'as having a valicl, eflective and subsisting driving license'

10. The ou'ner of lorry s'as examined as RW2, in his evidence he stated before the Commissioner that deceased u'as employed as a labourer ancl on l2.ll.2oo4, he r'l'as on duty Learned counsel for Insurance Compan-r' cross examined the owner at length but nothing was elicited to dispute the evidence of RW2' RW 1, the representative of Insurance Company filed trxs'B 1 6 and 82 (copy of register and copy of Insurance policy). The fact that premium u,as collected for three employees under the Workmen's Compensation is not in dispute

11. The contention that the deceased was a plumber and was not a labourer on the rorry has been raised. It is obserued rrom the order that the lnsurance Company has relied on the FlR, to buttress the contention that the deceased is not a labourer and plumber, no eflorts are in place by way of evidence to prove the contention Lhat there is no employer employee relationship. The other factor which strengthens the conclusion of the Commissioner is fact that owner in his evidence has categoricaliy stated that he employed the deceased on his lorry for last one year and w'as on emproyment on 12. r,1.2oo4i.e.. on the date of accident. Said evidence is not rebutted and reliance placed on the FIR, cannot be considered to conclude. it is also obserwed that in the inquest and post mortem report, the deceased was described as a labourer. In the absence of any evidence to substantiate the contentions of Insurance Company the Commissioner rightly denied by the Commissioner, this ..{:,ct&€ *:;':*! \ 7 Court does not hnd any infirmity in the order of the learned Commissroner.

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Golta Raianna and Others v' Divisional Manager and Ariothert, held as follou's: " tO. Undcr the scheme of thc Act, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioncr is lhc last authority on ir.t". fn" t)arliarnent has thought it fit to restrict Lhe ..op" uI thc appeaL only to substat-rtial questions of t.*, U.lr-tg . ttllfu.. legrslaLion Ut-rfortunatcll ' thc uigf-, co"ii has missed this crucial question of Limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re appreciate tl-re eviclence and recordccl ils orvn hndings on percentage of disabtLiq' tbr n'hich also there rs iro basis The made by the High Court is not t'ithin *nol. lhe competence of thc High Court undcr Section 30 of the Act," "r...i""

13. The said principle enunclated in Golla Rajanna's CASC jtrdgment o[ Fulmati been reiterated 1lt (l supra) has Dharrndea Yadant and another a' Neu) lndia Assurance Co' Ltd. and another2.ln the facts and circumstances of the case' no question of lau', much less a substantial one' arises for consideration. '1zorr1 r scc +s '2023 scc Online sc I 105

14. For reasons aforesaid, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal devoid of merits, same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs... IS 1S Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// ot- K. SRINIVASA RAO OINT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER --t To, '1 . The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle lll, T.Anjaiah Karmika Sankshema Bhavan, RTC Cross Roads at Hyderabad (With Records, if apy)

2. One CC to Sri Kota Subba Rao, Advocate (OPUC) 3. One CC to Sri M.Ajay Kumar, Advocate (OPUC) 4. Two CD Copies Ks/gh M,' HIGH COURT DATED: 1 7 10612025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.634 of 2014 ( ,;) .) 1i SEP 2U6 l l l i I I I i I i i i I I I i I t t I I I t I I I Dismissing the C.M.A Without costs. g l" .:.. , . ti.-,t${6e} - HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA -" ATHYDERABAD TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TVC -''' PRESENT Between: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI ctvtL MISC ELLA NEO US APPEAL NO: 634 oF 2014 New lndia Assurance Comnany Limtied, Secunderabad, Rep.by- its Regional Manaqer. I_lat N o. 40 1 a n d 4o2, 4th I oo r, hi _ka-ree m" ir;d;E ;?::ft:",n1s u nl, se cu ndera bad ...APPELLANT/OPP.PARTY NO.2 AND 1 F.rt, D.Jlleela, Wo late Sri D.Ramesh z. Master D.Raiu. S/o tate.Sr, D.RameJh Age . 1yr 3 Sri D._Bheem-a, Sio Bhotya 4 9mt D. Janaji, Wo Bhtii:ma A, are R/o Kanchal Thanda Village, Nalgonda Dist. presen,y R/o H.No.10_14_16/C, Chappat Bazar. Kachiguda, ftvAe%Uai=" 5. sri D Venu, s/o D.venkatesh Rlo l cross Thirrr"r;s?iss:"o,j:?ENTS/APPLtcANTs ...RESPONDENT/OPP.PARTY NO.1 Appeal U/s 30 of W.C. Act against the Order made in W.C.No.36 of 2O0S dated 30'07 '2007 0n the fire of the commissioner for workmen,s compensition and Assistant Gommissioner of Labour, circre ,r, T.Anjaiah Karmika Sankshema Bhavan, RTC Cross Roads at Hyderabad. ORDER : This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment the Lower Court and the material papers in the W.C. and upon hearing the arguments of sri Kota subba Rao, for the Appeflant and of Sri Ajay Kumar Madisetty, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.l to 4. This court doth Order and Decree as follows : 1. That the appeal be and hereby is dismissed. 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SD/- K. SRINIVASA RAO INT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation an Commissiorr_er of Labour, Circle lll, T.Arijaiah k;rmii Bhav_an,.RTC Cross Roads at Hyderaba'd Two CD Copies W Asslstant aSa nkshema To, 2 HIGH COURT DATED:1710612025 DECREE CMA.No.634 of 2014 Dismissing the C.M.A Without costs. q b