Miscellaneous Appeal No. 50 of 2023 · The 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 operation of the Order dated 26-07-2022 passed in E.C.No.11 OF 201.4 on the file of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Mahabubnagar, including the withdrawal of the money deposited before him. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy. Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Sri G.Purushotham Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.4: None appears. The Court made the following: ORDER re\ TITE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR C.M.A.No.SO OF 2O23 ORDER: Heard sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and sri G.Purushotham Reddy, learned counsel for the 3.d respondent, and perused the record. 2- with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the present Appeal is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

3. The present Appeal is filed assailing the orders passed in E.c.No.ll of 2ol4 dated 26.07.2022 in awarding the claim granting compensation of Rs.5,4 6,82t /- together with interest @ L2o/o per arrnum, out of the claim of Rs.8,0O,OO0/- and provisions of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.

4. The facts reveal that the deceased was working as a cleaner in lorry bearing No. Ap-ogu- 3447 , under the employment. of the respondent No.4, received .injuries on account of the accident occurred during and ourt of the course of emplo5rment on ol.l2.zolo, on which date, as per the instructions of the employer, the deceased was proceeding on 2 the said lorry which was loaded with cement pipes and on the way, when the lorry reached in the limits of Nallakunta Rayanapadu road, Vijayawada, the the said lorry stopped the vehicle and directed the deceased for tightening the rope over the lorry. While the deceased was tightening the rope over the Iorry, suddenly one cement pipe with heavy weight from the lorry fall on the deceased, as a result, the deceased sustained grievous fracture injuries on his ribs and other parts all over the body. Soon after the accident, the deceased was shifted to the General Hospital, Vijayawada in 108 Ambttlance, where the doctors diagnosed the injured foi his traumatic prolepsis and bone fracture of Pl2 wedge compression and later he was referred to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment, and after detailed examination the deceased was referred to Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad wherein he was operated on 11.01 .2OLL and rods were inserted into the ribs. The doctors also examined the deceased and opined that spinal cord. of the d.eceased was badly damaged in the accident and he was totally disabled and was not in a position to attend even natural calls and completely dependent on others and spent C 3 Rs.3,00,000/- towards his treatment. Thereby, the deceased was permanently and totally disabled to do any work on account of the accident. The deceased died on 14.o7.2015 while undergoing l-reatment. The deceased was earning a wage of Rs.6,OOO/- p.m. and batha of Rs.1O0/- per day thereby contributing for the maintenance of his family. The deceased was aged about 26 years at the time of accident. However, the said lorry u,as also insured by the insurance company and having valid insurance from 22.06.2,010 to 2l.06.2011 squarely covering the time of accident.

5. Before the Authority under the Employees compensation Act, 1923, the owner of the said lorry did not appear and remained ex parte.

6. The Insurance company filed counter affidavit denying averments made in the Application stating that the deceased was not an employee within the meaning of the Act, and there is no relationship of employer and employee existing between the deceased and respondent No.4 herein. It was denied that the deceased was suffering with any disability and also denied \ 4 n the monthly wage, daily batha and age of the applicant as claimed by the applicants. The 4th respondent herein further denied that the d.river of the said 10rry was having a valid driving license at the time of accident'

7. Therefore, it is contended that the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation before the Authority under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923' B.Duringtrial,theA.Ws.lto3wereexaminedandEx.Alto Ex.ATweremarkedonbehalfoftheapplicants.onbehalfof respondents,R.W.lwasmarked'andEx.B-lwa.smarked. g. Before the cross examination, the lst respondent deceased died on L4.O7.2OL5 and his parents were brought on record as his legal representatives. During the cross examination, the 3'd respondent herein as A.W.2 stated that his deceased son was working as a cleaner und.er 4th respond'ent vidhyavathi, and other contentions were denied'

10. During cross-examination, A'W'3 who is working as a civil Assistant surgeon (ortho) in Government civil Hospital, Mahabubnagarforaperiodofsix(6)years,statedthaton 5

02.12.2014 the deceased was issued with disability certificate Ex.A4 to the e;<tent of BO% for post traumatic sequel spine i,r'ith quadriplegia. He further stated that during the examination, the applicant/deceased had cervical spine injury, for which he underwent treatment at NIMS Hospital, Flyderabad on

02.12.2O1O and on account of the said disability. the patient was bedridder-r and cannot sit, stand or walk at all and cannot do any kind of 'vrrork at present and in future. Therefore, the disability is B0'Zn and he is cleaner by profession and he lost his earning capacity at 100%o. 11 Even dtrring the cross examination, A.W.3 denied that one cannot asser-t t.he disability and he also accepted that the deceased is required an attendant for attending natural calls.

12. During the evidence, R.Wl stated that the accident took place due to the sole negligence of the cleaner/deceased '*'hile he was working as a cleaner on the said lorry and '*'hile tightening ttre rope around the Iorry which was tightened up felt loosed, one pipe fell over him and received injuries on ribs and other parts of the body. However, RW1 did not deny about the I ! I j i i I I I I I I t- i l I I 6 r\ relationship of employer and employee.

13. The main contention raised by the appellant herein that the applicant/deceased does not come undbr the delinition of workman under Section 2 (n)(i)(c) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, and there is no relationship of employer and employee, on careful perusal of the pleadings aclduced betrx,een the parties, states that deceasecl was working ats a cleaner r,vho admittedty do not have ariy managerial powers attracting provisions of the Workman uncler Section 2 (n)(i)(c) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. Upon the perusal of the evidence produced by the parties reveals that the relationship of employer and employee established more particularly s1 the time of accident. The deceased was young and aged. about 26 years. The claim made by the ciaimants taking into consideration of this daily wage of Rs.B,0O,OO0/- appears to be reasonable.

14. Therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner for Empioyees Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, awarding the total compensation of Rs.5,46,821/- together with .1. iT /"" 7 justified and does not call for any interferance of this Court.

15. In vier,v of the above reasons, this Court did not find any merit in the appeal.

16. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. SD/- A.V.S. PRASAD PUTY REGISTRAR I \ l\t\j SECTION OFFICER / /rRUECoPv / / To,

1. The Commissioner for Employees'Compensation and Deputy Commissio ner of Labour, Mahabubnagar.

2. One CC to Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate [OI'UC] 3. One CC to Sri C.Purushotham Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] rt * 4. l. Two CD Copies \w' IU/^, ICK/PSt, //l ' J SEH1 t x,l I * I HIGH COURT DATED:29/08/2025 ORDER CMA.No.SO of 2023 Dismissing the C.M.A. without costs: f I