1 VS,J C.M.A.No.24 of 2018 APHC010018332018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 24/2018 Between: 1. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, 6'1' FLOOR, LEDA BUSINESS PARK, ANDHERI, KURIA ROAD, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI. ...APPELLANT AND 1. SOKE RAMANAIAH, S/O. CHINNA GANGANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, HINDU, COOLIE. 2. SOKE VENGAMMA, VENGAMMA W/O RAMANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, HINDU, COOLIE. BOTH ARE R/O MOTNUTHAPALLI VILLAGE, PULIVENDULA MANCLAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 3. KAKARLA KULAYAPPA, S/O. K. SANJIVULU, AGE. NOT KNOWN BUT MAJOR, CRANE OWNER, R/O D.NO.1-265, CHINNA ROSI REDDY STREET, PULIVENDULA TOWN, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal Under Section_____against ordersto allow the Appeal by setting aside the Order dated 06-03-2017 passed in W.C.No.3 OF 2013 on Ike file of the Court of The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 2 VS,J C.M.A.No.24 of 2018 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 dispense with the filing of Original Deposit Receipt and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2018 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 condone the delay of 245 days in filing the appeal against Order dated 06.03.2017 passed in W.C.No. 3 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa and to pass IA NO: 3 OF 2018 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 06.03.2017 passed in W.C.No. 3 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa , including the withdrawal of deposited amounts before him, and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GUDI SRINIVASU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY The Court made the following: 3 VS,J C.M.A.No.24 of 2018 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, by the appellant/opposite party No.2 – insurance company, challenging the order dated 06.03.2017 passed on the file of the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa, Kadapa in W.C.Case No.03 of 2013, whereby the Court below awarded a compensation of Rs.4,92,016/- to the respondent Nos.1 and 2/applicants. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: (a) For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed before the Court below. (b) The applicants are the parents of one Soke Rajendra (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’), opposite party No.1 is the registered owner of the crane bearing No.AP04AJ0557, which was insured with the opposite party No.2. On 02.08.2011, the 1st opposite party engaged the deceased as a cleaner of the aforesaid crane and while the said crane reached fields of Military Fakruddin, its driver drove the same in rash and negligent manner which resulted in turtle of crane on the side of the road; due to the said act, the deceased died instantaneously. It is the case of the applicants that the deceased, aged 20 years, was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and died during 4 VS,J C.M.A.No.24 of 2018 the course of his employment under the 1st opposite party, thus, the 1st opposite party along with the 2nd opposite party, who is the insurer of the subject crane, are liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of their son. (c) The 1st opposite party remained exparte. The 2nd opposite party contested the claim application by filing written statement denying the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It denied the fact that the deceased was engaged as a cleaner to the crane of the 1st opposite party and stated that the manner of the accident has to be proved by putting forward oral and documentary evidence. Hence requested to dismiss the claim application. (d) After considering the submissions of either side, the Court below framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provision of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and he met with the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment? 2. What is the age of the deceased at the time of accident? 3. Whether the deceased really died during the course of his employment under 1st opposite party or not? 4. What were the wages paid to the deceased at the time of the accident? 5. What is the quantum of compensation payable to the applicants? (e) During the course of trial, on behalf of the applicants, A.W-1 was examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf of the 2nd opposite party, 5 VS,J C.M.A.No.24 of 2018 the R.W.1 – Assistant Manager (Claims) of the 2nd opposite party was examined who got marked Exs.B1 to B3. (f) The Court below, relying upon the evidence adduced by either parties, observed that the deceased was an employee of the 1st opposite party and died during the course of such employment and directed both the opposite parties to pay Rs.4,92,016/- to the applicants as compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd opposite party filed the present civil miscellaneous appeal on the ground that the Court below failed to appreciate the fact that the deceased was not a workman within the meaning of the Act; that the 1st opposite party did not pay any premium towards the insurance of labour travelling in crane and that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger of the subject crane. 3. Heard Sri. Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel for the appellant/2nd opposite party and Sri. D. Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/applicants. 4. Perused the entire material available on record. It can be seen from the documents relied on by the applicants and the evidence of the 1st applicant that the deceased, in the capacity of cleaner as engaged by the 1st opposite party, died in an accident while proceeding to Hindupur in the subject crane, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st opposite party. It is clearly established from the evidence relied on by the applicants that the 6 VS,J C.M.A.No.24 of 2018 deceased was working as a cleaner under the control of the 1st opposite party and in the absence of any rebutting evidence, it can safely be concluded that the employee-employer relationship between the deceased and the 1st opposite party is established. Ex.A1 – FIR and Ex.A4 – charge sheet, which were filed against the driver of the crane clearly supports the case of the applicants. 5. It is the case of the opposite party No.2 that it is not liable to pay compensation to the applicant as the insurance policy only covers the risk of one employee i.e., the driver of the crane. As mentioned supra, Ex.B1 is the insurance policy issued by the 2nd opposite party in favour of the 1st opposite party for the crane bearing No.AP 04 AJ 0557; it is clear from Ex.B1 that it was issued on 09.08.2011 and the same is valid up to 01.08.2012, in other words, the insurance policy is in force as on the date of accident. It is clear from Ex.B1 that it covers personal accident for owner/driver and in addition, it also covers the legal liability of paying to driver and/or conductor and/or cleaner in an accident. In general, by paying a small additional premium for "LL cover," the insurance company takes on the financial responsibility and pays compensation to the driver or any other person, involved in an accident, in whose favour such cover was opted. In the case on hand, it is evident from Ex.B1 that the 1st opposite party has paid extra premium towards legal liability and in such a case, the 2nd opposite party cannot escape the liability of paying 7 VS,J C.M.A.No.24 of 2018 compensation to the applicants whose son died in an accident during the course of his employment by the 1st opposite party. Therefore, both the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the applicants, hence, the view taken by the Court below with regard to this aspect is reasonable and the same need not be interfered. 6. The applicants, relying on Exs.A2 (Inquest Report) and A3 (Postmortem report) contended that the deceased was aged about 20years as on the date of accident and the same was not opposed by the opposite parties. Thus, the Tribunal, considered the age of the deceased as 20. With regard to quantum of compensation, though applicants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, no proof is filed in support of the same; thus, the Tribunal relied on G.O.Ms.No.83 L.E.T&F (Lab.II) department, dated 22.11.2006 and considered the monthly wages of the deceased as Rs.4,393/- . After applying the relevant multiplier ‘224’, the Court below calculated the compensation payable to the applicants as Rs.4,92,016/- [Rs.4,393/- X 224 X 50/100], which in the considered opinion of this Court is well reasoned and the same is neither excessive nor deficit. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no error in the impugned order dated 06.03.2017, passed on the file of the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of 8 VS,J C.M.A.No.24 of 2018 Labour, Kadapa, Kadapa in W.C.Case No.03 of 2013. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous appeal is hereby dismissed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:16.04.2026. Gss