IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 787 OF 2009 Appeal under Section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 against the order in W.C No. 12/2007 dated 03-10-2008 passed by the Court of the Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa. Between: The New India Assurance Limited., Rep. by its Branch Manager D.No. 2/789, 1st Floor, Sairam Towers, Nagarajpet, Kadapa City and District. ...Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 AND 1. Smt. Dudekula Beebi Jan, W/o. Late Pedda Hussani @ Kulayappa House Wife D.No. 3/1130, Y.M.R. Colony, Proddatur Town, Kadapa District. ...Respondent/Applicant 2. Dudekula Mabu, S/o. Dastagiri Lorry Owner of ATT-1872, D.No. 3/220- C, Y.M.R. Colony, Proddatur Town, Kadapa District. ...Respondent/Opposite Party No.1 3. P.Redeppa Reddy, S/o. Gangi Reddy Lorry Owner of A.P. 04-U-2235, R/o. Katavakinda Papireddigaripalli, Rayachoty (M), Kadapa District. ...Respondent/Opposite Party No.3 4. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Local Branch Manager, Opp: District Court, Kadapa City & District. ... Respondent/Opposite Party No.4 I.A. NO: 2 OF 2009(CMAMP. NO: 334 OF 2009) 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of order dated 3- 10-2008 in WC.No. 12/2007 on the file of the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa, pending disposal of the above CMA Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. T V P SAI VIHARI Counsel for Respondent No.1 : SRI L J VEERA REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3: None appeared Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI SAV RATNAM The Court made the following: JUDGMENT 4 APHC010144442009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI ' (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 787/2009 Between; The New India Assurance Com. Ltd., Kadapa^Dist. AND Smt Dudekula Beebi Jan, Kadapa District ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT(S) and 3 Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1.T V P SAI VIHARI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.S AVRATNAM 2.LJVEERA REDDY The Court made the following: <8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL N0.787 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 against the Order dated 03.10.2008 in W.C.No.12 of 2007 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa, Kadapa District. The insurance company is the Appellant. The facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as follows;- The Claimant is the mother of the deceased D. Nizamuddin, was working as a Cleaner in a lorry bearing No.AP TT 1872 owned by O.P.No.1. O.P.No.2 is the insurer of the vehicle under policy bearing No.61100/31/05/02/00002572, which was valid from 15.12.2005 to 14.12.2006. O.P.No.3 is the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 04 V 2235 and O.P.No.4 is the insurer of O.P.No.3. On 03.03.2006, the deceased along with the lorry driver S. Sankar Reddy started from Proddatur Town with a load of hen-feed in the vehicle of O.P.No.1 towards Tirupati. While the vehicle reached Anjaneyaswamy temple, Alwyn Naagar, Nandalur on Kadapa to Chennai State Highway, the lorry driver parked the vehicle on the left side of the road due to repair. The deceased slept on the top of the cabin of the lorry while the driver sat in the cabin. On 04.03.2006 at about 3.45 a.m. the lorry belonging to O.P.No.3 from Kadapa side in high speed and collided against the stationed lorry of O.P.No.1 from the rear side. In the result, the deceased Cleaner, who was sleeping on the top of the cabin fell down and sustained bleeding injuries on the head and died at S.V.R.R. Hospital, Tirupati while taking treatment on 04.03.2006. The driver and cleaner of O.P.No.3 also 1. 2. 3. 4. came f 2 died in the said accident and a criminal case was registered by Nandalur Police Station vide Cr.No.9 of 2006 punishable under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC. As the deceased was working as a lorry cleaner and was on duty at the time of accident, the application was filed seeking compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-. In the application it was pleaded that the cleaner was getting salary of Rs.3,000/- per month from O.P.No.1 and was aged 25 years at the time of accident. O.P.No.1/employer remained ex parte while O.P.No.2 i.e. the insurer of the vehicle-in-question filed counter disputing the employment of the deceased as cleaner, salary, accident and the income apart from disputing the lack of driving license to the driver of the vehicle. O.P.Nos.3 & 4 are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. O.P.No.3 remained ex parte and O.P.No.4 filed his counter, which may not be relevant for the purpose of determining compensation under Workmen’s Compensation Act. 5. The Commissioner taking into consideration the rival submissions framed the following issues for consideration;- 6. 1) Whether the deceased is a workmen as per the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and he met with accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting into death? 2) What was the age of the deceased at the time of accident? 3) What were the wages paid to the deceased at the time of accident? 4) What is the quantum of compensation payable to the Applicant? 5) Who are liable to pay the compensation to the Applicant? 3 7. In support of her claim, the Claimant herself was examined as and she reiterated her claim. Further, the Claimant got marked A.W.1 Exs.A.1 to A.4 i.e. Certified copy of F.I.R, Certified copy of inquest report of the deceased. Copy of the Post-mortem Certificate of the deceased and the Certified copy of the Charge Sheet respectively. No evidence was let in by the opposite parties barring Ex.B.1 insurance policy. The Commissioner after considering the oral and documentary evidence awarded compensation of Rs.2,99,572/- and held that both O.P.Nos.1 & 2 to be jointly and severally responsible for the said amount. Hence, the present C.M.A is filed. Heard Sri T.V.P. Sai Vihari, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri L. J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the Respondents. The contention of the counsel for the Appellant-insurance company is that the policy does not cover the cleaner and therefore the insurance company is not liable for the said amount. The counsel for the Respondents supported the compensation granted by the Commissioner and contended that the cleaners are also covered under the policy and he placed a reliance on Section 145 (i) of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Notwithstanding the above, the only ground urged by the counsel 13. for the Appellant was that the policy does not cover the Coolies. It is not in dispute that the policy covers third party and in view of the amendment definition of “Third Party” vide Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act under the amended to the 2019, all persons other than the owner definition of ‘third party’. The Section 145 (i) reads as under: come f 4 145 (i) “third party’’ includes the Government, the driver and any other co worker on a transport vehicle. 1 This Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Savidi Anjaneyulu has held that the amendment to the definition of Section 145 (i) of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 is clarificatory and therefore it is applicable retrospectively covering the risk of the driver or any other co-worker as ‘third-party’. 14. In the opinion of this Court the deceased being a “co-worker on a transport vehicle’’ would come within the definition of ‘third party’ and the insurance company cannot raise the defence that there should be a specific policy for the cleaner also. The reliance on Section 147 of the Act may not be of relevance as Section 147 of the Act only provides for requirement of policies and limits of liability. 15. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal and the accordingly, the C.M.A is dismissed. 16. Considering that the accident pertains to the year 2006, the State Legal Services Authority is directed to coordinate with the concerned to ensure that the compensation is paid to the Claimant directly into her Aadhar linked bank account at the earliest. 17. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. 1 see Online AP 4840 Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY 11 SEeTION OFFieER To, 1. The Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District (with records if any) 2. The Member Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, BSR Complex, Near A.P Sectretariat, Malkapuram village Thullur Mandal, Amaravathi 3. OneCCto Sri. T V P Sai Vihari, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. L J Veera Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri. S A V Ratnam, Advocate [OPUC] 6. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 7. Three CD Copies Stu vna 'T HIGH COURT DATED:10/02/2025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.787 of 2009 \ 12 MAR 2025 m ^ . Current becuon , DISMISSING THE C.M.A