The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR. JUKANTI CML UTISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.965 OF 2013 JUDGMEN]]: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved bl thc ordcr dated:13.08.20 l3 passecl in W.C.No.251 o1'20 I 1 on the lile of the Crrrnmissioner lor Ilmployees' Compensation ancl Deput-\,Cornrnissioner of Labour-I, Hyderabad (lcrr short the Co rn m is sio n c'r') '2. llcarrd Mrs. T.Padmaja, learned coutrsel rcpresentinSl Mr. S. I Iarin:Lth Redd-y', learned Standing Counsci for lirt: appclli.Lr-rt. 'lhcre is no appearance on behalf of responclcr-tt Nos.1 ancl 2. in s1>itc ol notice being served

3. Brief lacts 'l'he appcllzrnt herein is the opposite party No.2 ([nsurance C)om par-r_r,) and respondents herein are the oplrosite partv No.1 (ovr,ner of the vehicle) and applicant beforr: the Com rnissioner. 'lhe applicant clairrrs to br: er rr'or1<nran (lab rr-Lrr:r/ hclper) cmployed by oppositt:, partr.' No. i on vehicle bearing No.AP 29 BF 7840. On 28.06.2011, r,r.hen the lony u,as pror:eeding towards Haliya of Nalgonclat District, I I1n at about 09:30 a.m., nhen the lorrv reached Peddavoora Village outskirts, the driver drorre the vchicle in a rash and ncgligent fitanner, due to u,hich, thc vel-ricie turner,l Lurtle and the applicant received grievous irrjuries over the bodr,. lnitiall-v, he \\ras taken to Government I(. N. t{ospital, Nagar.junasagar, for treatment and later shilted to Mother 'lheresa Hospital, Devarakonda. A case in Cr.No.72 of 2O I 1 under Sections 337 and 3O4A ol Irrdiarr Per-ral Codc, 1860 (for short 'lPC') s,as registered :1.1 The lorry was insured b], opposite party No.1 vide irrsurance policy bearing No.100O/31 I l1 /2BOO9B. r,alid from I O. I 1 .201O to 09. 1 1.20 1 1. The applicarrt claims that he s'as being paid monthly wages of Rs.8,000/- and Rs. 100/ per day tor'r,ards batta by opposite part-1, No. I at the time ol accident and claims arr amount of Rs.B.O0,O00/ - AS corrpensation against opposite part-r. Nos. I and 2 jointll' and sevcrally.

3.2 Learned Commissioner examined AWs. 1 and 2 as witncsses for applicant and IRW. 1 for opposite partv No.2 Ilxs.A1 to Ai2 were marked on behalf of applicant and Ex.Bl I I I i , I I I i --7 on behalf of opposite party No.2. Learned Commissioner, hai'ing con sidered the evidence on record , at,"'arded a compensation of Rs.2,BO ,192 l- along vr.ith interesl (u l2':t' per anr-rLrm lron 29.O7 .20 1 I till the date of rcztiization. Tl-re amount u,as; clirected to be paid b5, opposite ptrrty Nos.1 and 2 fiointi.r, and severally) u,ithin 30 days from the date of receipt oI t]rc order. Challenging the said orcler, opposite partl No.2 (lnsurance Compan-y) filed the present appeal.

4. Learnccl Star-rdir-rg Counsel appearing orr behalf of appellant- [n sLrrancc Companl' submitted that applicant \\':].s not a laboulcr'/ hclpe r on the said vehicle. That no evidence u,as adduct:cl on behalf of applicant to substantiate the contention t hirt he u,as employed by opposite party No. l drau'ing a nronthl-\, u,age of Rs.8,000/ - (along n,ith bat 'LL Rs.l00/ pcr' <leu'). It is further submitted that on the date of accident, thc appliczrnt u,as sitting on the top ol the lorrv cabin along r,i,ith trvo others and rvhen the lorr.y reached the oulskirts ol Prcldavoora Village, it turned turtle due to rash and neglrgent clrivir-rg ol the driver and applicant fell from top of lorr_1' cab jn and sustained injuries. It is also submitted I that lnsurance Company is not liable to pay amount. as the applicant r.vas not a cleaner/ labourer/ helper on thc lorn. and that the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, catrnot come to the rescue of gratuitous passenger

4. 1 It is submitted that the rate of interest au'arded bt, the Commissioner is on the higher side and granting intcrcst (/ l2olt per annum u,ould prejudice the lnsurance Companl'. [t IS further submitted that RW. I (employee of lnsurance Compatrr') in his evider-rcc denied that basic prcmiurn cove rs rhe risl< of all the employees, It1 spite ol the denial, Commissioner au,arded compensation on the ground that lnsurance Company is liable to compensate the injured, as tl-re lorr,\' r,vas covered under insurance policy. it is aiso submitted that Commissioner erred in coming to the conclusion that there was an employer-employee relationship betw-een the owner (opposite party No. 1) and the applicant. That the ar.t,ard of the Commissioner be set aside and that tl'ie ratc of interest be reduced

5. There is no representation on behalf of respondetrl.s, in spite of service of notice. Accident occurred in the year 20 1 1, I I i ! t i I .\ /'1r J ( \/ I \,,96: -'rrl-r W.C. is of the vear 201 1, order of the Commissioner is dated

23.08.2013 and C.M.A is of the year 2013. 12 years have lapsed, thcre is no representation on behalf ol- respondenLs I11 spite of service of notice. This Court is r-rot inclined to furthcr adjc,urn the matter and intends to pass order on mcnts.

6. Heard Iearned Standing Counsel lor the appellant, perr-rsed thc rcr:ord 7 . On 28.0(r.20 L i, the applicant suffered ir"rjuries, u'hen he lcll lrom lonl bearing No.AP 29 BF 7840 at the outskirts of Peddavoor-a vrllage. Initialll , hc u'as treated in Governmcnt K. N. t'iospital, nagarjunasagar and later shifted to Molher Theresa Hospitarl, Devarakonda and u,as admittcd as an in patient from 28.06.2Oi1 to 15.07.2011. During the treatment, h is three toes of rigl-rt loot were am putated. It is not rn dispute that accident occurred on 28.06.2011, as on the date of the accident, Iorr.v u,as insured vide insurance poiicy bearing No.l000/31I ll l2BOO9B, r'alid from 10.1l.201O to 09.11.2O11. Ar-r FIR bearing No.72 of 201i came to be registered on 28.06.2Ol1 and the Ctrarge Sheet is 6 J..lii. ) C ll .1 \. t6) :t.;i filed before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryaiaguda. In the FIR, Charge Sheet, claim petition and chief affidavit, thc erpplicernt stated that he r,r,as a labourer of the said vel-ricle. In the discharge slip ol the hospitals, u,here the applicant n.as treatcd. it is rloted that he \\.as a labourcr. Tltc Commissioncr, on the basis of the documents, u,as of thr: opiniol-r tl-rat l're r,r,as a labourer on vehicle bearing No.AP 29 BF 7B-+0. the said fir-rdir-rg is recorded at paragraph No. I6 ol t he ordcr of the learne d Commissioner.

8. 'l'he Hon'ble Apex Court, ri,hile dealing ri,ith the schemc I of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, in Golla Rajanna and Others Vs, Dioisional Manager and anotherr , held as foiior.r,s: " 10. Under the schemc ol thc Act, the Workmer-r's Compcnsation Commissioner rs the last authority orr facts. Thc Parliament has thought it fit to restrict thc scopc of thc appeal only to slrbstantial questions of las. being a u,clfare lcgislation. Unfortunatcly, the High Courl. has missed this crucial question of limited jurlsdiction and has vcnturcd to re-appreciate the evidcncc and recorded its orvn findings on perccntagc of clisability for which also therc is no basis. The whole exercisc made b1' the l-ligh Court is not lvithin thc competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act.'' L (20t7) I scc 4.s il i ,j-: li - ,. i

9. 'l'he H,:lrr'ble Apex Court in Golla Rajanna (supra) he Id that under thc scheme of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the Conrrnissioner is the last authoritl' otr facts. Said proposition of' lrru il made applical;1e to the present facts ol case, u'herern Commissioner recorded that the applicartt herein was a labourcr, this Courrt cannot distr-rrb the finding of the Commissioner, unless it is shos n that thc finding is perverse in n:rlure. It is obsen,ed lrom thr: record that lnsurancc Cr>rnpanr, collected preminrn of Rs.8O0/- tou,ards basic thircl party cover and the applicant is held b-r, the Commissiont:r to be a third partv. Risk of the :rpplicant is covered by a prcmium of Rs.25/-, to cover the risk of other employee personnel emplo-ved over an d above the permitted employees. As per Section 147(1) Proviso (i) (c), the Insurance C,rmpally is statutorill, liabie for the' amount of compensatiorr arising from tl-ie provisions ol n'orkrrten's Compensation Act. 1923, to tl-re employees of the insured (maximum pr:rmitted emplo-vees of 7 as per Rr-rlc' 252 ol A.P. Motor Vehicl,-'s Rules, 1989) and the insured need not pay any additional premium for the statutory liabrlity of the S J,1K. J {' ll ).\D 96t )01.1 irtsurer for the compensation of the employees carried in goocis rrehicle. I O. Having discussed thc entire Section L47 ol the Motor Vehicies Act, 1988, at length, in relation to the liabilit-r, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Lhe Commissioner held that as per the Lerrn s arrd conditions ol the insurance policy, opposite part,v No.2 Insurance Company is bound to ir.rdemnifl' the re quirements of the liability under Workmen's Clompensatior-r Act, 1923.

11. [n vieu, of the detailed discussion ol Commissioner u,ith regard to the liability ol the insurance Company, this Court cannot disturl: thc findir-rgs ol the Commissioner, as it is a valid consideration of both the liability of Insurance Company and the fact that the applicant r,i,as labourer/ helper/rvorkmen under the \Vorkmen Compensation Act, I O/)2

12. As far as the interest rate is concerned, the interest (Zr, l2Yo p.a. is reasonabie, it is'nbt:on the higher side. It is tritc to take note of the fact that Commissioner is entitled to grant I I I i I the interest on the compensation arnount .rs per the prevailing rates. No effort has been made 1o sho\\' that interest (A.. 12"i, p.a. is on the hisher side. On tht: other hand, tl-ris Court h:rs come across a number ol L)l'ders of the Commissioner, wherein interest (ri 12t'/o p.et. has been granted, which is not excessive, taking into considerat.ion the lact that thc Statue under u'hich interest is being paici is a u'ell'are legislation. Commissioner substantiarcd the order br' placing reliance on the judgmcnts ol Hon'blc r\Jrex Court in Pratap Ncrrrzin Singh Deo I/s. Sriniuas Sabqta and anotherz zrncl VcIsala Vs. Keralq- State Electricitg Boards on the issue of payment of interest on the amount of compensation. wherein it u,as held that it teresL starts accruing one month from the date of accident. but not fron-r the date of lilling the application or from tl'r,,- clate of tl-rc order. After considering the said jr-rdgrnents, the Cornmissioner \vas ol the vierv that interest u l2')k per annum be granted from 31"t day of the accident till the date of realization. ls76) I SCC 2{t!' tqqg) 8 scc 25.1 \ \ l0 .i,t !, J ( \1..; \,, ),\ :al.)

13. No substantial question of lanv arises, Commissioner's order is ne:ither perverse nor illeqal. This Court does not lind .rny in[irmity 111 the order of the Commissioner. interference is necessiLated.

14. For reasor-rs aforesaid, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal 1S devoid of merits. is liablc to bc dismisscd and is accordinglv dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. I To, ,TRUE COPY' SD/. A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Commissioner for Employees' Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour-l, Hyderabad. (with records if any) 2. One CC to SRl. HARINATH REDDY SOMA Advocate [OPUC] !. Two CD Copies ?/ PM/gh HIGH COURT DATED:1910612025 ORDER CMA.No.965 of 2013 -z.j , i iig.irr.4If ,:) :. I \ .: .l>t/ ii 0 0[I 2q5 D f.s <-.--:;-= .lf-O DISMISSING THE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL /4-/.,o ,Zt ( ,,4 -