The High Court · 2025

For the Appellants : Sri Harinath Reddy Soma For the Respondents: Sri Chandrasekhar Reddy Gopireddy, Acr tcate[Not present] The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CML MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.843 of 2OL2 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeai is frled aggrieved by the order dated 30.O4.2O12 passed in W.C.No,65 of 20 10 on the file of the Commissioner for Workrnen's/Employees' Compensation ald Assistant Commissioner of Labour-ll, Hyderabad (for short the Commissioner').

2. Heard Ms. T.Padmaja, learned counsel representing Mr. Harinath Reddy Soma, Iearned counsel for appellant and None appears for respondents.

3. Matter pertains to year 2012, there is no appearance on behalf of respondents/ applicants, this Court is not inctned to adj ourn the matter and dispose the matter on merits.

4. Respondents are iegal heirs of the deceased. The deceased K. Maraiah was a driver of 1orry bearing No.AP 30T 5929. On 13.03.2O 10, while he was proceeding from Hyderabad to Kothoor, he suffered chest pain, while at the steering wheel, 2 and was shifted to Medicare hospital, he died r n 13.03.2010. Lorry is registered in the name of Ch.Anjan r yulu/ Opposite Party No.1 (as in W.C.No.65 ol 20 10). Commissi rner examined A.W. 1 and R.W.1. Exs.Al to A7 were marke<l br applicants. Ex.B 1 is Insurance Policy. Commissioner. holding that deceased was on duty when the incident happer ed, awarded a compensation of Rs.5,28,662 I -.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for apo: lant/ Opposite Party No.2 (Shriram General Insurance Compa:r. Limited) that the death of deceased rvas natural and the rt hicle was not involved in any accident. That insurance compz j L_i, is not liable to pay arry amount. Learned counsel invited t I : attention of this Court to the judgments relied upon by their :ounsel in the Court below (extracted in the order of W.C.No.6.i of 20 10). It is further submitted that claimant/ respondent r 'as not aged 38 years, that the wages adopted by Commisr; oner was not correct and the amount of compensation arrived i .t is on higher side. It is further submitted that when a person I es other than in an accident, the Insurance Company carnot 1 e mulcted for j I I I ! I I I i I I I I I I I ! I I I I a i I I I I : eI E I I 3 payment of compensation. It is also submitted that it is not forthcoming from the pleadings of the claimants that the deceased was appointed as driver (workmen), that no documents are frled to substantiate the claim.

6. It is submitted that Ex.A3-Post Mortem Report does not reveal the cause of death. It is further submitted that awarding of interest in favour of the claimants from date of frling of claim petition till the date of an ard is also improper. It is pointed out that terms of insurarce contract have to be strictly construed and that in the present case, the same have not been construed. It is lastly urged that the order in W.C.No.65 of 2OlO is to be set aside as the order is not based on sound reasoning.

7. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of Insurance Company ald perused the record.

8. On 13.03.2010, the deceased was driving the lorry bearing No.AP 30T 5929 and he suffered a chest pain. It is evident from the order at Paragraph No.14 wherein the Commissioner recorded that Police had clearly observed that 4 deceased $,as at the steering wheel q,hen he sufit red chest pain ald died on 13.03.20 10. Ex.A3 is Post Molr 3m Report of Osmania General Hospital, wherein the causr of death u,as pending, as report of AP Forensic Science Labor: iory rvas to be received. The Police records reflect that the dece .r ;ed rvas at the steering wheel and he suffered chest pain u'tr: ic iriving the lorry from Hyderabad to Kothoor and was shift e C to Medicare Hospita,l for treatment and died. There can be rr r dispute u.ith regard to the incident of death happening wl-ril: the deceased was on the steering wheel (driving). Nowhere, thr r e is a rebuttal that the deceased was not on the steering u.-t :el except an averment that death of deceased was natural :: Ld the vehicle was l1ot involved in any accident.

9. Ex.A4 is a copy of Registration Certificatr: showing that the lorry is registered in the name of Ch.Anja r eyulu who is Opposite Party No. 1 in W.C.No.65 of 201O. Ex.rr i is a copy of driving license of deceased and is va_lid up to 1i' )4.2012. lt is observed from the order that RWl was examinc r on behalf of Insurance Compary I I I I t I I i I i ! I ; ; 1 ! l ..,,,/ B i i I I ! i ! I I i i

10. During cross-examination, he admitted that FIR and Inquest report reflected that the deceased u,as proceeding as driver from Hyderabad to Kothoor, this admission is substantive enough to bring home the fact that the deceased was at the steering wheel when he suffered chest pain and is during the course of employment as lorry driver. It is a fact that 1orry driver was taken to hospital and died on 13.03.2010. The Commissioner held that death of deceased \ ras as workman within the meaning of the Act and that the death occurred in the course of employment under Opposite Party No. 1. At Paragraph No.16, the Commissioner held as follows: "... With rega,rd to 3.d issue, the applicants claimed that the deceased employee was paid wages @ Rs.4,OOO/ per month by O.P.1, which was disputed by O.P.2. As such, I rely on the Minimum Rates of Wages were hxed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in emplol,rnent of hrblic Motor Transport in G.O.Ms.No.83, L.E.T & F (Lab-ll) Department dated 04.12.2006. As per this G.O., the basic wage for a heary vehicle driver is Rs.4319/-. The V.D.A. payable as notified by the Commissioner of Labour, A.P., Hyderabad from time to time was Rs.lOO2.75 paise per month at the relevant time. The total wage amounts to Rs.5321.75 paise per month and the same amount is taken as wages for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. ii. The applicants stated that the deceased employee was 38 years of age at the time of accident, which was disputed by O.P.2. The applicants relied on Ex.A6, dnving license in which his date of birth is recorded as 6.5.1966 and by which date the deceased employee has completed 43 years of age. In the 6 absence of any contrary evidence, the.age of thc deccascd employee is takcn as 43 years for the purpose of c I nputation thc amount of compensation." 1 1 . The contentions raised on behalf of Insurz nce Companv have been alsu.ered by the Corrmissioner by pr'r rer reasoning The age of employee is a-lso taken as per Ex.,qa which is the driving license ancl the wages as irxed by the C r vernment are considered

72. This Court does not hnd any infirmity in tL e order of the Commissioner directing to deposit a cort tensaticn of Rs.5,28,662l-. Ex.B1 is Insurance Policy of the orry, there is no dispute with regard to, the insurance coveraf e of the iorry during the said date. This Court does not hnd zr !v illega-lity or perversity in the order of the Commissioner, no nterference is necessitated. 1 3. It is trite to take note of the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment dealing with the scheme of tl r Workmen's Compensation Act in Golla Rajanna and Othersi v. Divisional i I t I I r I ! i : : , ,.... '/. 1 I I I ! I 1 Manager and Another r , wherein the Apex Court held as follows "10. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workrnen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thougl-rt it lit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions of [arv, being a rvelfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this cruclal question of limited jurisdiction arld has ventured to rc appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the compctence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act.'

14. For the reasons aforesaid, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is devoid of merits, sarne is liable to be disrnissed and is accordingly dismissed. No ordel as to costs.

15. The amounts if any to be paid to the deceased family, i.e., respondents/ applicants shall be paid as per the order of the Commissioner. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, sha.ll stand closed. To, SD/.P.GOWRI SHANKAR DEP TY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// EC ION OFFICER 1 The Commissioner for Employees Compen-sation and Assistant r--ioori lv- T.Aniaiah Karmika samkshema Bhavanam' d;rlr;i;;;;t RTC-X-Roads, HYderabad. Ci." Cb i"-Sri'Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate [OPUC] il; dc i. s,i ihiiaiisertriiReaov'copireddv, Advocate [oPUC] Two CD CoPies 2 3 HIGH COURT DATED 09/06t2025 JUDGMENT CMA.No 843 o't 2012 ,L i[i:[ ru5 I b \\ PPEAL IS DISMISSED, NO COSTS