The High Court · 2025

BRMR.J CMA.No.9g2 20 lA from the date of accident till the date of realization and prayed to allow the application.

4. Respondent No.6-opposite party No.1 remained ex parte before the Commissioner.

5. Appella nt-opposite party No.2 filed counter and contended that the policy mentioned in the application i.e., Policy No.0502023115P111831135 is denied to have been issued to respondent No.6-opposite party No.1 and that the deceased R.Suresh was not the employee of respondent No.6-opposite party No.1. The incident has taken place when the deceased was going on a trip with his relatives which is evident from the Criminal Record, which does not come under the coverage of EC Act and that the opposite party No.2 (appellant herein) is not aware of the criminal case proceedings lodged in the above matter in Crime No.39 of 2016 of PS Alair, Nalgonda District. The amount of compensation of Rs.12.00,000/- along with interest @ 24o/o per annum as claimed by the applicants (respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein) are not in accordance with schedule of EC Act and that opposite party No.2 (appellant herein) is not liable to pay any compensation to the applicants and prayed to dismiss the same.

6. The Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Deputy Commissioner-Labour I, Hyderabad, has framed the following issues: 4lt5 I}RMR,.J CVA.No.992 2018 I

1. Whether the deceased was a workman within the meanlng of the Act and sustained injuries in the accident on 02.04.2016 during the course and out of his employment with the 1$ opposite party as a driver on the Tavera car bearing No.AP 29V 9408?

2. Who are, liable to pay compensation to the applicarlts? and;

3. What is the amount of compensation entitled by the applicants?

7. Respond()nt No.1-applicant No.1 is examined as AV\'.1 and also examined AW.,l-Sri M. Sathyanarayana, got marked Exs.A1 to A9. Ap pellant-oppo!;ite party No.2 failed to lead evidence but got marked Ex.B1-Insurance Policy.

8. The learrred Commissioner after analysing the eviderrce adduced by the parties has awarded the compensation of Rs.7,47,974/- along with interest @t l2o/o per annum (on Rs.7,44,486/-) from 03.05.2016 till the date of realization jointly and severally liable to p,ry the same by opposite parties No.1 and 2 (respondent No.6 arrd appellant herein ) .

9.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Commissioner failed to observe that the deceased was not under the employment of the respondent No.6-opposite party No.1 and grossly erred in fastering the liability jointly and severally ancl the substantial question of lav,, that arises for consideration are: s/ 1s BRMR.J CMA No 992 2018 (a) whether the learned Commissioner is right in fastening the liability on the appellant-opposite party No.2 and respondent No.6-opposite party No.1, When the applicants (respondent Nos.1 to 5) have not proved the employment of the deceased; (b) Whether the learned Commissioner was right in passing the award when the deceased was returning to Hyderabad along with his family members and relatives in Tavera vehicle bearing No.AP 29V 9408 after aftending the funeral of the relative; and (c) Whether the learned Commissioner was right in passing the award when the deceased was driving/using the vehicle for his personal use.

9.2. The learned Commissioner failed to see that the alleged accident did not occur during the course of employment of the deceased, failed to appreciate the evidence on record properly and there is no employer-employee relationship between the deceased and respondent No.6-opposite party No.1 at the time of the accident and the learned Commissioner ought not to have awarded interest @ l2o/o and prayed to set aside the impugned order.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5-applicants contehd that the appellant did not enter into the witness box to substantiate his contention and that the employer-employee relationship is a question of fact, there is no substantial question of 6lts BRMR,J CIIA No 992 2018 law, no interfer€ nce is called for and placed reliance on the decisions in - the cases of Nrrth East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. sujathar, (2) Golla Rajanna and Others Vs. bivisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., and another2, (3) Divisionnl Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Yallappa Bhimappa Alagudi3.

11. Heard learned counsel on record and perused the material. L2. Now the loint for consideration is: Whether the grounds pleaded by the appellant falls within the ambit of substantial question of law to interfere with ttre impugned order, if so, to what extent?

13.1. The Appeal is filed by the appella nt-opposite party No.2 under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the specific orders ;et out in Clause a to e of Section 30 (1) of the Act.

13.2. The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the Appeal is confined only to examine the substantial question of law arising in the case. 14. Substanl ial question of law means that the point rnust be one that can be re;rsonably discussed and would have a signiflcant bearing on the decision if answered in either way and the question must have a significant impact on the case final outcome. If the answer;6 the ' 2019 ecl z9 tzouAcJl 3 2OOS tawSuitf ra-;670 BRMR,J CMA.No.992 20 la question, whether yes or no would substantially change the decision then it is considered as a substantial question of law.

15. Respondent Nos.1 to 5-applicants counsel contended in the written arguments that the employer-employee relationship is only a question of fact which was decided by the Commissioner after considering the oral and documentary evidence.

16. To establish the employer-employee relationship, evidence is used to show the existence of crucial factors like the power to hire, the power to pay wages, the power to dismiss and the power to control the individual's work. Court will only interfere with findings on this issue if there is a complete lack of evidence or if the finding is obviously erroneous or perverse.

77. In North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation', Supreme Court observed at Para Nos.9 and 10 which reads as under: *9. At the outset, we may take note of the fact, being a settled principle, that the question as to whether the employee met with an accident, whether the accident occurred during the course of employment, whether it arose out of an employment, how and in what manner the accident occurred, who was negligent in causing the accident, whether there existed any relationship of employee and employer, what was the age and monthly salary of the employee, how many are the dependants of the deceased employee, the extent of disability caused to the employee due to injuries suffered in an accident, whether there was 8/ 1s BRMR,J Cl,lA.No.992 2018 .1 any insurance coverage obtained by the employer to cover the incidr:nt, etc., are some of the material issues which arise for the just decision of the Commissioner in a claim petition vrhen an employee suffers any bodily injury or dies during the course of his employment and he/his LFLs sue/s his emplc yer to clalm compensation under the Acl.

10. The aforementioned questions are essentially the questions of fact and, therefore, they are required to be proved with the aid of evidence. Once they are provt:d either €indings recorded thereon are regarded as the way, th€ findings of fact.

18. In Golla llajanna's case2, Supreme Court observr-'d al: Para No.11 which reads as under: '11. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's Compens;ation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. Parliame'rt has thought it fit to restrict the scop,3 of the appeal only to substantial questions of law being ;r welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has mi$sed this crucial q Jestion of limited jurisdiction and has - ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and - recorded its own findings on perc€ n[age of disability for which also there is no basis. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not \ rithin the competence of the High Court under section 30 of tt'e Act".

19.1. B.Vijay Kumar has lodged a complaint before S I. of Police, Alair on O2.O4 2076 contending that he along with nine others went to Valimidi Village, Palakurthi Mandal, Warangal District, frorn Hyderabad in one Tavera :ar bearing No.AP 29V 9408 to attend the fr-lneral of one 9/\s BRMR.J CMA.No.992 20 I a of the relatives and in return journey to Hyderabad in the same car. when they reached Pedda Vagu Bridge, Alair, on NH-163 Road, one vehicle was coming in the opposite direction with heavy focus lights at about 10.00 hours in the night. the driver of the Tavera Car (deceased) namely Rampally Suresh Goud S/o Somaiah, aged 28 years, who is his brother-in-law tried to move away from the vehicle and lost control of his car and the car fell down on the left side of the bridge and the driver died on the spot.

19.2. Basing on the said complaint, PS Alair has registered Ex.A1 - FIR No.39 of 2016 dated 02.04.2016 for the offences under Sections 304(A) and 337 of IPC against Suresh Goud Rampally, Occupation- Driver-Car. Ex.A2 is the charge sheet filed by the police in Crime No.39 of 2016 dated 29.O4.2016, wherein, the deceased-Rampally Suresh Goud, occupation is shown as driver of Tavera Car bearing No.AP 29V 9408. Ex.A3 is the Inquest Report and Ex.A5 is the Accident Report. Ex.A8 is the Certificate of Registration of Maxi Cab No.AP 29V 9408 and the registered owner is the respondent No.6- opposite party No.1. The Maker's classification is shown as Chevrolet Tavera NEO3, seating capacity is 10.

20. Section 2(n) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, says about workmen means any person who is: (c) a person recruited as driver, helper, mechanic, cleaner or in any other capacity in connection with a motor vehicle. BRMR.J Cl,{A-No.992,2018 I 2L. The evidence of AW- 1 is the replica of her applicatlon. In her cross-exa mination, she stated that her Sur name and the !;ur name of respondent No.6-opposite party No.1 is R. and they belong to the same community and she accompanied her husband at the time of accident and all the members in the vehicle bearing No.AP 29V 9408 are relatives arrd they went to attend the funeral of maternal aunt of the deceased. -.,he has not filed any document to show the employment ofthe deceased with opposite party No.1 (respondent No.6 herein) on his vehicle so :rlso she has not filed any document to show the salary of the deceased and opposite party No.1 (respondent l,,lo.6 herein) runs two vehi<:les as Travels. AW.1 denied the suggestion that the deceased and other passengers were going on a personal rrork and the Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and that the deceased was not driving the vehicle in the capacity of l:he driver as such, Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. AW. 1 also denied the suggestion that opposit(: party No.1 disclosed to the Insurance company that the deceased took the vehicle for his personal work as such opposite party No.2 (appell;rnt herein) ls not liable to l)ay any compensation and the deceased do not come under the ternl employee-driver.

22.I. The evidence of AW.2-M.Satyanarayana who is an eye-witness to the inciden: travelled along with the other passengers in the Tavera Car bearing N:.AP 29V 9408 stated that the respondent Nto.1-applicant Ttlrs BRMR,.' CM .No 992 2ola No.1 is the wife of the deceased. On 02.04.2016 at about 9.00 A.M. he received a phone call that his relative by name Cheruku Jaganadham of Valimidi Village, Palakurthi Mandal, Warangal District died. Himself, his relatives including applicant No.1 were willing to attend the funeral then he contacted opposite party No.1 (respondent No.6 herein) to send his car on hire, in turn opposite party No.1 informed that Tavera car is available for nine passengers and after negotiations, opposite party No.1 agreed to receive a sum of Rs.3.500/- towards hire charges for to and fro and he paid the said amount to the deceased as directed by opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 has sent the Tavera car bearing No.AP 29V 9408 and initially the deceased was the driver of the said vehicle, and he deposed the manner in which the accident has occurred. The deceased was working as a driver under the employment of opposite party No.1, by the time he received the death message of C.Jaganadham, he was already on duty, the deceased was the driver under the employment of opposite party No.1 and he died during the course of his employment.

22.2. In his cross-exa m ination, he stated that he is the relative of the deceased who was driving the Tavera car bearing No.AP 29V 9408, he is giving the evidence at the request of the Advocate and the persons travelling in the Tavera car are all relatives, the applicant Sur name is Rampally and opposite party No.1 Sur name is also Rampally and he \ 12115 BRMR,J CNLA.No.992 20 t8 I I has no document to show that the deceased was earning tls.15,000/- per month plus !1s.400/- batha per day. 23, The evidernce of AW.1 and AW.2 coupled with Exs.A1, 42, A3 and A4 goes to show that the deceased was under the employment of opposite party f'lo.1 as a driver of Tavera car bearing No.At' 29V 9408. The initial buroen on AW.1 is discharged by way of adducing oral evidence of A\ f.2 which is supported with Exs.Al, A2, r13 and A4. Appellant - opposite party No.2 has taken a defense in the (:ounter that the deceased v/as not the employee of the opposite pai:y No.1 but failed to examine any independent witness to discharge their burden but got marked Ex. B1-Policy.

24. This Court is of the view that the learned Commissioner has rightly appreciated the facts of the case with regard to the employment of the deceased with opposite party No.1 as a driver of Tavera Car and assigned reasons in doing so in Para No.8 to 12 of its order.

25. Respond,-.nt Nos.1 to 5 counsel - applicants placed reliance on Divisional Maneger United India Insurance Company Limited3, Wherein the High Court of Karnataka has held that the petitioner is the son of insured is not ir ground to infer that there cannot be a relationship of master and sorvant. The facts are distinct and the :;ame is not applicable. (' / 13175 BRMR.J CMA.No.992 20la

26. Ex.81 is the Policy insured with the opposite party No.2 (appellant herein) in respect of Tavera car bearing No.AP 29V 9408 and the same is valid from 07.01.2016 to 06.01.2017 covering the date of accident i.e., 02.O4.2016 which also covers the risk of the driver. As the deceased was under the employment of opposite party No.1 and is covered by the Insurance Policy. The deceased possessed a valid driving license as on the date of accident (02.04.2016) under Ex.A6. As per Ex.As. the vehicle was in a fit condition at the time of accident.

27. In so far as earnings of the deceased is concerned, the learned Commissioner has taken the minimum rate of wages fixed by the Government of Telangana in Employment of Public Motor Transport in G.O.Ms.No.83, L.E.T & F (Lab-Ii) Department dated 22.11.2006 w.e.f.

04.t2.20O6 and arrived at the total wage of Rs.7,304.25 paise per month which is taken as wages for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. As per Ex.A6-driving license of the deceased, his age is shown as 32 years at the time of accident (Date of Birth is 10.07.1983). The learned Commissioner has awarded total compensation of Rs.7,47,974l- with interest @ 12olo per annum on the amount of compensation i.e., Rs.7,44,486/- from 03.05.2016 till the date of realization jointly and severally payable by opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 (respondent No.6 and appellant herein) within 30 days from the date receipt of this order. \ 1-4/t5 IJRMR,J ,lMA No.g()2 2018 ,

28. The reaso ling of the Commissioner with regarc to the assessment of the, income is in accordance with law which is discussed in Para Nos.13, 1,' and 15 of its order.

29. Respondenl Nos.1 to 5 - applicant's counsel filed lt4emo on O4.O3.2024 statirrg that during pendency of the Appeal, rt:spondent No.5 - applicant No.5 died on 25.07.2018 (Death Certificate filed) leaving behind respondent Nos.1 to 4 - applicant Nos.1 to ,1 as legal heirs and success)rs to his estate, Memo is taken on record.

30. As rightly :ontended by the respondent Nos.1 to 5-applicants counsel that the employer-employee relationship is a question of fact which is already decided by the Commissioner by givirg cogent reasons and ther(: is no substantial question of law and tnis Court has limited jurisdictio r, cannot venture to re-appreciate the evidence and record a differe nt finding.

31. The appellate jurisdiation in the Appeal is confinerl only to examine the sub itantial question of law arising in the caso present case, there is no substantial question of law Commissioner he s properly appreciated the facts of the In the and the case and rightly awarded the compensation to the respondent Nos.1 to 5- applicants. Th€ decisions cited by the respondent Nol;.1 to 5- applicants counsel in North East Karnataka's case' and Golla Rajanna's case2 are applicatle to the case on hand. I 1s/ 1s BRMR,.J CMA.No.992 20I8

32.ThisCourtiSoftheViewthattheCommissionerWaSrightin deciding the matter and rightly awarded the compensation to the respondent Nos.1 to S-applicants and I am not inclined to interfere with the same. Furthermore, appellant has not made out any substantial question of law to re-appreciate the evidence on record' Hence, Appeal deserves no consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordinqly, dismissed'

33. CIYA No.992 of 2018 is dismissed wlthout costs' Interim orders, if any, shall stands vacated' Miscellaneous application/s, if any, stands closed SD/. P.GOWRI SHANKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUOHAN RAO (For His Lordships kind Perusal) To, '1 . The Commissioner for Employee's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour l- T. Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavan; R.T.C. 'X' Roads, Hyderabad. uur*t E cozo if ANy.

2. 11 LR Copies 3. The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi

4. The Secretary, Advocates Association Library, High Cou( for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad 5. One CC to Sri M Satish Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri P Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies w ABK/PSL I HIGH COURT DATED: 1810912025 ( JUDGMENT CMA.No.992 of 2018 ,.. .-=-__::=\ ,1 i ll .'- l; irr lU 2 [ l[T 2p5 l) () ')t, ( ;' / DISMISSING THE CMI. U/ITHOUT COSTS 1 4\ ",,r 1O i