The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant(s): Sri T. Mahender Rao Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S. Surender Reddy The Court made the following Order:- q* - ...*;., '..:r THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CML MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.363 of 2OL4 JUDGMENT: 'l'lris Civil Misccll:rncoris Appcal is filed aggrieved b1' thc orclcr clatccl O9.0 I.20I 1 passt'rl in W.C-No.14 <:f 2Ol2 on th(' lilc ol- tl-rc Cornmissioner tor I')rnplo-r ecs' Compensa[ion ilnci t\s:jlsti.urL Coinmrssiorrcr ol L,ab<-rur-. Nrzzrmabad (for short 'thc Conr nr is sioner-')

2. Hear-d N1r. 'l'.1\l:rhr'nclcl Iliro, le:l-ncd SLanclir-rg Corittst'l [or appcll:rnr.O1-l1.rusitc I)zrr1r i'Jo.2 ancl il4r. S.Sttrender Reclrlr', lcar:-rcd counscI [or- rr-spondcnts

3. 'lhe dec--eatsccl ir as zr c:lcant'r on lorry. No.AP 29 U 7717 C)n I6.05.20 I2 at l2:ll0 P.Ni.. u hen 1.1-rc- r,ehicle reached MIIA (loclou'r'r, Khanapoor. r'illaqe . Nizi,rmabad District, the cleani:r \\,A S checking thc L,vres of lorr1., meanq,hile, the drir,cr suddenly drove Lhc vehicle in rersl-r and negligent manner at high speecl in rt-r,,er:;c :rnd the' krrn' ran orrer the head of Joku Narsimhar, ctuc to rvhicl-r hc surstained nrultiple fracturcs to Y,,.. -( / ) s1<ull, crush nr.jLrries to itcarl . Irr-ain crr-rslrc<1. r' rr.tlrre ol- r.iqht slrortlcler- ald rlir,'c[ o]t th(, :;r>rrr l1 LS not i:r ( ,:jl)Lt.,c lhrrL tltc il('Cident occur-rc(l cluring tltt' i rrLrr-sc of e rrrlti,', Icnt anrl that ltc trras discharging l-tis clrrtics zrs a clerar.rei- L,ncler the orrncr r.c:., Opposite Par[r' No. 1in W.(1./r'.,'sporlcl('l]l '.o.3 irererr.r. 'i'ltc ciaimants/re spondent i\ios.I .ilrd 2 <:lairrrl zt sLlt.'l) of I?s.10,0O,000/ An amottnt ol Rs.5.18.fi55/ r.rs zru'ardccl as r:ompcnsatior ,,r'itlr inlercsl ir 1?,t. l) (- o r: nt is:; irt rt cr clirected t}'rc Opposir-e I)artr \os.1 :Lncl :2 rs jointh ulnd scverally liabl<: to pa\'.'i'hc.ll)llcllant hercin r:; the inslrrance Companv, rr:s1lc>rtdenL No.3 i:; tlrc ou'r'rer -+. A case ir.r Crirne No.l55 of 2012 unilr:r Si--clions 30.1-A ilnd 337 of IPC rvas registcrccl in Nizarnab; i Rural Police Station. trx.A 1 is F lR. A2 is chirrge shcct. ,\3 i:. incluicst r('lr()r-t. A4 is post r-nortcm cxanlin.ll iorr rcport an<l - ls lns r t r-:.rncc Policy. Thesc are tl-re clocLlrnents malkr:rl or-r bchall of applicants hcrcin {clairnan ts / responden t Los.1 and 2) Exs.B1 to 84 arc markecl on bchalf o[ InsLl],Lnce C)onrpan\, Ex.B1 is the policy of lon1 No.AP 29 U 7741. :lx.B') is rr copy ffiEy -.1.::: i- $/ 3 ol re gistercd post acllrou ledgmcnt, Es. U3 is a copJ/ of report oI motor vehrcle ins]lector zrncl llx.B'] is summotts to rlitness

5. AWI, izrther of dcceascd, rtats cxitmirtcd, RWI and RW2 u,crc cxamined on bchalf o[ lnsuratrccr Compan1,. RW2 is the staff oI motor \ ehicle irrspector officc.

6. It is contendcd bt lear-t'rccl coulnsel for lnsurance Compernl' Opposite Partv No.2 that thc clrrver of 1orr1'u'as not hoLcling a valicl:ind ellectivc rlriving licctrsc to drive the heal1' goods vehicle at t hc timc ol acciclc tt t arr"rd the Insurancc Company cannot bc rnulcLccl u'itlr thr: li;rbility. It is furthe r submitted lh:1t therc is collusio:t l:ct\\ ccn the olrrner and thc applicants and suppr-c'ssion of matcritrl facts, causing loss to insurance Companr'.

7. It is submitted that cviclcr-tcc sas adduced by RW1 and RW2 lor lnsurancc Companv ar-rd tl'rat the liability of the cornpany is covercd in terms of policr', thaL any breach rvould not make the InsLtrance Compan-r' Iiable. It is further subrnitted lhat ou'ner of thc Io'- 'rfullr permitted the driver '-*. '( . '\ to drive tlte vcl-riclc \utllout :i r':rlicl clt.ivrnq lic,:rrsr:. That thr. r-r:sponsibilit-r. to Llndcrt:rli(' to \.('r-if\ ;tnrl rrs :r:rtairt $ ltr,1lrCr the drirrcr ri'as posscssir-rg lt r.:rlicl clrii inq Lic,,rns,, ()r. jlot. is n()1 clischarge<l. hence, the orvncr is lizrblc itr iet-t-s of ltolic-r . It is rlot irl disputc that tire policr rr zrs Cxist inq zi:j ot1 [he rl:r tc. ol- zrccidcnt- Th:rt the clriver- rr':rs lriso 1;roct edc,r ,utclc.r Scctiol l8l ol Moror Vehicle Act in Crinrc No. 15J of l'.r 2.

8. It rs sr-rbmittccl tl-rat ot nc'r. r.emarirr,.-:ri i r pztf tc. hii\.iltq rerceivcd thc notice, that notic.r: rr:rs alsO scrlt 1,.) (ll l\ er t() llt(, address menttoned in chirrgc slrcet {<lceinerl sen,icc). It is <:ontcnded that the burclcn sirilts to tllc al)p ic.:rru s rri 1tror,.r. u,hether the clriver sas itolclirtrl a r.alicl rltivin: liccns,.t :rt rhc tin-rc of accider-rt. It is rciterertccl thert tl'rc ()ltL S :.itlrtot lir: rLlto,t Ll-re Insurance Compan-i :ts it shiits lrlton the ir\\ ltL-r also. It is lurther submitted that t<W2 st2rff ol Lhc i,lotor Vc.hir:1. Inspector Oflice had stated that [)olice clid 1]oL prodLlce ll.lc clriving license of driver zr.nd culn be trc:atecl as u'iti-ror_rt ciriving license. It is pointed oLll that thc dcpositior-rs .rl RW2, noriccs ser.'rt to the os.ner and drivcr shi{'t thc ()nLls ot .lte:rp1;lic:rt.rts and the Opposite Par-tv No. .l i.e.. ou'r-rer to prove that the drivcr u,as holclir-rg ar '' irlicl clriving lir:cr-rsc'.

9. Lcarned counsel reliecl on the juclgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sardari qnd others u. Sushil Kumar and othersl and contendcd that .rs Jlcr the lau' laid dou'n by the Hon'ble Apex Court. rhe clrivcr of vehiclc is required to hold a r.alid license and LI'r:rt ou ncr of the vehicle has to verify u.hcthcr lhe driver ol the vi:hicle possessed a valicl drivil-tg lic:ense or noL at tlrc timc o[' ernplovment. That Insurance Company is r-roL liable to pa,r thc compensation.

10. On the other- ltand, Iearned cottt-rscl for applicants (claimants / respondcr.r t Nos- 1 ar-rcl 2) submitted that the employer-empLoyee rclationship is cstablished (betr,veen cleaner and ou,ner), as on thc datc of accident, as the deceased was emplor.ed on the lorry. be aring No.AP 29 U 7747 . Tb,aL Insurancc policl u as valid and thc premium ra'as '1zoos1 ru scc zos E+,- i.aEE r*,1;&i*{*}& t .:i*3 t}'r*'t,. , '.i i:;ttsr.::ii;; \rr,t:.,..: 6 paid for four emplor.ees co\rcriltg thc risl. oi' (lrivcr and cleaner

11. Il is submitted that RW1 in his dcltosiri,lr harcl aclmittcd that he hzrcl noL hled a copy of RC, has not ,rbrzrined vchicle rccords ancl driving licer-rric particulars. Lhal n()ti,,es scnt to os.ner ancl drir.cr througl-r registerc<1 posL. tl,( L git c:i:rin.r<:c1 rto :rc1<nou.ledgement \,\,as reccirred eutd copl- r.ocltrced. It is further sr-rbmitted that RW 1 trad statccl tl-r:rt I c colrld lot sar. ithether ttre Ltotices u,ere served to o\\.llcr:ltcl rlnver ar-rd t1'rat risk of the cleaner is covercd iL-r the policr ar-rc l)pposite l)arLr No. 1 is the ou ner of Lhe vehiclc

12. Heard iearned counsels, perused tlrc rr:corcl nncl coi'rsidcred the niral submissions

13. Deceased rr,,as a cleaner in the lorn be:u i;Lg No.AP 2.1 U '/747, wh<:n thc vehicie reached MBA ClorLr!\r.r. Khan:,ipoor Village, the deceased u,as checi<rng ttre t\ res of lorr,t-, suddenly t1-re driver drove the 1orry, as a resrrlt of u i-ricl-r thc 1orr1. ran or.er him. I)eceased sustained multrple lractlrres to -..r'-rur .. ,/ - skurll, crush injuries to head. bt'zritt crutshed, fracture ol right slrouldcr and died on the sltot Ilcsllorlclenl No.3 is oruler ol Lhc lorry, appellant herein is irtst-lt't:r o[-lorr,\'. Case in Crirne No 155 ol 2012 in Police Statron ol- Nizarnabad Rural catrte to bc registered for offences ltttdcr Sectiorrs 304 A and 337 ol I[)C. tircse facts are not ilr dispLlto. I 1. ItW 1 is :rn etnplor ec of IttsLtt-lLttr:i' (,'oltl1lat-t-r , RW 1 irl his clcposition stated 1-re c.lnrlot stL-1 u llclller- the uotices s'ere scrvcd lo Opposite Part,r' No. 1 t.c., os ttt't ancl the driver ,15. RW2 admitted tl-rat he hers not itst'ertaitlcd neithcr \\'ith thc o\\'ner nor rvith thc' driver r:ll thc r chiclc regarding c1ri"'ir-rg licencc of the drirrcr. llW 1 sttrtccl that rrcither the o\.\-ner nor t}'rc driver of the crime vehiclc' \\ crc l)rcserll at the time of inspection. RW2 admitted tllat tlic vclticle rias insured ancl policy was valid from 29.06.20 l l to 28.O6.20 12 and that he has no personal knowledge whether tl're driver possessecl a driving license or not and futrtht:r state(l tfral lhe rrchicic u'as I-ravir-rg valid fitness and permrt ET@\ E{:#F i. :c:! 2 -!: i:::-. q- '' l(r. R\\12 deltosecl tl'rat ltc rlirl rrot s1.atc i L-rritinq it.r tltc ltll-irn'i:rtive altout the lir:ence, ll\dt 1, empkr.i cr,. r,i'1ltc Insr,rrrrr-rcc ()ornltartr , slated that hc clicl nol clcposct zls 1o ,\ hctrrt:r rtotic.r,s ,.r,'c'rc sen.ccl on the clrn'er arrrl tlte ouncr, as r:i:ritrtecl. tlrc.sc, posiLiorrs ar-e sufhcc o11 tlte asl)ect of liccr-rcc rtnC rt,tticts. lt is ('()ntendcd thart llotices \\'c]l'c scnt to driver all ( o\\1rer l(r rltc ,tclclrcsses meLttioned in (he irltltlications ar:rrl c1t:rrqc' sltr.t.1. lrrrt clcposit jc)ns are otlte r-u,isc:. Nothir-rg is :. icite cl lri th(, lnsurance Compant during thc trial to disbcl cr e lLrc r.c.r-sior.r o1' thc applicants, on thc itspccrts of' cr'l-lultr et- r,rnp)or cc rclationship ancl the issuc of dr-iving liccnce.

17. The Comn'iissiolter at paragraph No.1ri of' the or-clcr rltrLecl 09.01.201-1 in \V.C.No.14 ol 20 12 lreld :r: lrl]orrs '' 10. In tl-ie cr-oss c:x:rrnination, I?\\ ii(lrnittc(l lh:IL as per FIR. chargr: sl'rcct :rnd i| lLtt's1 r ltc clcceasr:cl Joku Narsimha is describcci :r:. CLr::trrL:r. ll\V I admittcd that :rt Lhc timc ol acc: rLcrrl. lht' cleceaseci u,as sirou,rr ra..orking as (llr::rnc:: on 1or-rr bearing No.AP 29 U 7747." ..R\V I corrercd ir-r aclrnitted that the risk ol t1-re r: canc.r is the policy. The RW- 1 clr lic:d thc @ky :?xltf.& 9 IAK,] CMA.No.363 of 2014 suggestion that Ex. B 1 pertains to the vehicle No AP 29-U-7747."

18. In the light of the Commissioner's I-rnding, basing on the evidence and depositions, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of the Commissioner, as canvassed. The Commissioner's order that Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pa] compensation cannot be interfered u'ith.

19. It is trite to take note of the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment rn Golla Raianna lnd Others D. Diaisional Manager and Another2, wherein the Apex Court held as lol1ori,s: "1O. Under the scheme of the ?\ct. the Workrnen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authorit\ on facts. The Parliament has thought rt fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions ol larv, being a r'r'elfarc legislation. Unfortunately, the tligh CourL has ntissed Ihis crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has vclrtured to re appreciate the evidence and recorded its or'vrt fitlcltngs on percentage of disability for t'hich also there is no basis 'lhe whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the l{rgh Court under Section 30 ot the Act '' ' (zou) r scc as 10 .]AK,,] C \4A. N o.363 oF 2014 '2O. Thc saicl pnnciple is reiterated ilr tJ-re judement of Fulmati Dharrndea Yadaa and another u. New Indirz Assurance Co. Ltd.. and another 3 . In .hc fncts ar-rcl circumstances ol the case, no question ol 1ar', rnuch less ir substantial question of lau,, arises for consideraltion. 2l. This Court is not inclined to interfere u,i._h thc hndings arrived at 1rv the Commissioner. It is submit:ed across thc Bar Lhat thc ei-rtire amounts har.re been de;rositcd b-r. the Oppositc Perrtr- No.2 r.e., lnsurance Company ,ltd r.ide order dated 18.09.2014 pcrmission for withdras,ai ol 50% amount \\'as gralted. Rcspondent Nos.1 and 2/applicants are permitted to r,r,ithdraw the remaining Sooh cf the amount deposited b1' the Insurance Company bv follou.ing due procedure. 22 . For reasons aloresaid, Civii MiscellaneoLls Appeal is devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismrssed. Be that as it mav, respcndent Nos.1 ' sCC Online sc 1 105 ,- --T- :r "-.:, .i| . ,,1 1,1 JAK,J CMA. No.363 of 2014 and 2 / applicants are permitted to ',r,ithdrau. 50% ol the compensation amount awarded by the Commissioner. No ordcr as to costs Mrscellaneous applications pcnding, if an1 , shall stand closecl To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/. A.V.S. PRAS DEPUTY REG AR SECTION OFFICER 1 The Commissioner for Workmen's Compen Commissioner of Labour at Nizamabad. One CC to Sri T. l\rlahender Rao, Advocate One CC to Sri S. Surender Reddy, Advocat Two CD Copies 2 3 4 VC,/K i ll sation and ssistant toPUCl e [oPUC] I I i I I i I ; I I I i i r : l: t t I I : HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 ORDER CMA.No.363 of 2014 /. I I\ 't. \1 .?': - .': r _ --\. , a .,-i)\ - o..\. . ,^\\.\ l'r', i, 11 a": if 0[T zffi \ " ,- . . ',,, . - -r-/ DISMISSING THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS /{z ,/3 ,//a ,ll !