1 VS,J C.M.A.No.76 of 2020 APHC010067052020 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: 76/2020 Between: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, DABAGARDENS, NEAR PEN SCHOOL, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...APPELLANT AND 1. LAKINENI DEEPA, W/O CHANDRA SEKHAR (LATE) HINDU, DHARMAPURAM VILLAGE, PONDURU MANDALAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. LAKINENI KRISHNA RAO, S/O RAMULU (LATE) AGED 50 YEARS, HINDU, DHARMAPURAM VILLAGE, PONDURU MANDALAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. LAKINENI SEETHAMMA, W/O KRISHNA RAO, AGED 48 YEARS, HINDU, DHARMAPURAM VILLAGE, PONDURU MANDALAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, 4. GANDRETI NAGU, S/O.THIRUPATHI RAO, AGED 37 YEARS, D.NO. 31-12-36, ALLIPURAM. VISAKHAPATNAM DIST. 5. M/S DHANUNJAYA BUILDERS, , REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER R. RAMA KRISHNA RAJU, D.NO. 50-117 17/2, KRISHNAVARMA ARCADE, SEETHAMMADHARA, 2 VS,J C.M.A.No.76 of 2020 VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal Under Section_____against orderspleased to set aside the Order in E.C.No. 12 of 2018 before the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Asst. Commissioner of Labour,Circle - I, Visakhapatnam, 23rd October, 2019, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 pleased to condone the delay of 55 days in filing the main appeal against the orders in E.C.No. 12 of 2018 before the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Asst. Commissioner of Labour,Circle - I, Visakhapatnam, 23rd October, 2019, and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2020 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 pleased to grant stay of operation of the decree and Order E.C.No. 12 of 2018 before the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Asst. Commissioner of Labour,Circle - I, Visakhapatnam, 23rd October, 2019, pending disposal of the main C.M.A., and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 pleased to direct the Court of Commissioner for Employees Compensation act 1923 and assistant Commissioner of Labor, Circle-I Vishakapatnam to permit Petitioner/ Respondents to withdraw half of the Compensation amount, Rs.11,16,016(Rupees Eleven Sixteen Thousand Sixteen Only which, deposited in the court below by the Respondent/ Appellant Ordered in Ec,No.12 of 2018 Dt.23.10.2019 the amount which deposited. in the court below by the respondent/appellant, in the interest of justice, otherwise we, the petitioner/ respondents will be put irreparable loss and hardship. Counsel for the Appellant: 3 VS,J C.M.A.No.76 of 2020 1. L V S PRASAD BABU PUVVADA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G VENKATA SUBBA RAJU The Court made the following: 4 VS,J C.M.A.No.76 of 2020 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, by the appellant/opposite party No.3 – insurance company, challenging the order dated 23.10.2019 passed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation Act, 1923 and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle-I, Visakhapatnam in E.C.Case No.12 of 2018, whereby the Court below awarded a compensation of Rs.11,16,016/- to the respondent Nos.1 to 3/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 1st applicant is the wife of one Chandra Sekhar (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’), who is said to be a workman within the meaning of the Act, employed as ‘painter cum putti fixing skilled worker’ by the 1st opposite party since three years prior to his death by receiving wages of Rs.10,000/- per month in addition to a batta of Rs.50/- per day. The deceased was employed by 1st opposite party and was supervised by the 2nd opposite party in building construction work. On 01.11.2017, at about 10.30 a.m., the deceased accidentally fell from 2nd floor of the building bearing door No.4-70- 12, Lawsonsbay colony, Visakhapatnam, while doing painting work. 5 VS,J C.M.A.No.76 of 2020 Immediately, he was shifted to various hospitals for better treatment and while undergoing treatment at Government hospital, Srikakulam, the deceased died on 17.01.2018. It is the case of the claimants that the 2nd opposite party paid premium to 3rd opposite party towards insurance for 10 workers vide policy No.1502052717P105614551 which is valid from 17.07.2017 to 16.07.2018. Seeking compensation of Rs.14,97,500/-, the claimants filed a petition before the Commissioner. (c) The 1st and 2nd opposite parties have filed a common counter affidavit admitting the facts stated by the claimants and stated that the deceased was a workman and that the 2nd opposite party obtained a policy from the 3rd opposite policy for 10 workers which was in force as on the date of incident. When the 2nd opposite party addressed a letter to the 3rd opposite party on 24.01.2018 for settlement of claim, the 3rd opposite party failed to settle the compensation as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, requested a direction to the 3rd opposite party to pay compensation to the claimants under Employees Compensation Act, 1923. (d) The 3rd opposite party disputed the material averments of the applicants and denied that the deceased is a workman within its meaning. It further denied the fact that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him as on the date of incident. It further contended that in the absence of FIR, Panchanam, postmortem certificate, the claim application itself is not 6 VS,J C.M.A.No.76 of 2020 maintainable. It further stated that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the 2nd opposite party shall pay the compensation to the eligible dependents after which, the 3rd opposite party will indemnify the same as per eligibility. Thus, it prayed the Commissioner to dismiss the application. (d) After considering the submissions of either side, the Court below framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether or not the deceased Mr. Lakineni Chandra Shekhar Rao met with an accident on 01-11-2017 and died during the course and out of his employment in the employment of the OP-1 and working under control and supervision of OP-2 as Painter cum Putty fixing worker? 2. If yes, who are liable to pay compensation to the Applicant’s? And; 3. What is the amount of compensation entitled by the Applicant’s? (e) During the course of trial, A.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A1 to A18 were marked on behalf of the applicants; no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of opposite party No.1, however, O.P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B7 were marked on behalf of opposite party Nos.2 and 3. Exs.X1 to X6 were also marked. (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 all the 7 VS,J C.M.A.No.76 of 2020 opposite parties to pay Rs.11,16,016/- to the applicants as compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the 3rd 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 death of the deceased cannot be termed as a death due to accident arising out of an in course of employment with the 1st opposite party. 3. Heard Sri. P.L.V.S. Prasad Babu, learned counsel for the appellant/3rd opposite party and Sri. G. Venkata Subba Raju, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants. 4. Perused the entire material available on record. As per Employees Compensation Act, the existence of contract of employment express or implied between the employer and the injured workman is necessary for the application under the Act and it does not apply to a stranger who voluntarily offers to assist a workman nor does it apply to a contractor. The contract of service is necessary to create the relation of a master and a workman under the Act. A person is entitled to claim compensation under the Act, if the relation between him and his employer is that of an employer and a workman or a master and servant. 5. A perusal of the evidence adduced by opposite party No.1, it can be seen that the 1st opposite party proved to be an employer and the deceased was its workman. Furthermore, there was contract of service or employment 8 VS,J C.M.A.No.76 of 2020 exists between the deceased and the 2nd opposite party. Observing thus, the Commissioner has rightly held that the legal position of the deceased is within the scope of the definition of ‘workman’ in relation to opposite party Nos.1 and 2; answered issue no.1 in favour of the claimant and the same need not be interfered with. The commissioner further derived from the evidence of A.Ws.1 to 6 coupled with all documentary evidence that the deceased was working as painter cum putty fixing worker in the employment of opposite party No.1 and under the supervision of opposite party No.2, died due to an accident that occurred on 01.11.2017, during the course and out of his employment under the 1st opposite party. 6. It is clear from the record that opposite party No.2 is the insured and opposite party No.3 is the insurer and the insurance policy is in force as on the date of accident in favour of opposite party No.2, covering the risk of 10 workers subject to terms and conditions. It is clearly established that the deceased was a painter cum putty fixing worker and is a workman, in such a case, the statutory liability for the 3rd opposite party exists to indemnify the risk of workman/deceased. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the Commissioner has rightly made opposite party Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 7. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimants and opposite party No.2 contended that the deceased used to earn 9 VS,J C.M.A.No.76 of 2020 Rs.10,000/- per month as salary and Rs.50/- per day as batta, the Commissioner considered the minimum wages of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- as was fixed by the Central Government and considered the age of the deceased as 26 years relying on his Aadhar card. Thus, the Commissioner, after applying the relevant formula, computed the amount of compensation as Rs.8,61,120/- [Rs.8,000/- X 50/100 X 215.28]. In addition relying on Exs.A4, A5 and A15, which are the documents relied on by the applicants to prove that they have incurred Rs.2,54,896/- towards medical expenses of the deceased, the Commissioner has awarded the same under the head of medical expenses. This Court finds no wrong insofar as this aspect is concerned as the amount spent by the claimants for the treatment of the deceased shall be reimbursed to the claimants. In total , the Commissioner has awarded Rs.11,16,016/- [Rs.8,61,120/- + Rs.2,54,896/-] to the claimants and directed opposite party Nos.1 to 3 to deposit the said amount by means of a demand draft drawn on any nationalized bank in favour of the Commissioner of Employees Compensation and the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam district. 8. The Commissioner, considering the evidence adduced by the claimants and as well as exhibits marked by them, has rightly awarded the said amounts and held that in all, the claimants would be entitled for a compensation of Rs11,16,016/- which is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or 10 VS,J C.M.A.No.76 of 2020 on higher side. This Court finds no error in the order of the Court below granting the said compensation to the claimants. 9. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:16.04.2026. Gss