IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUSAPPEALNo.767 of 2013 Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, aganist by the order passed in VVC ;No.159 of 2005 dated 16*^ day of April, 2008 of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. Between: National Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, 22-269/1, Sundaracharlu Street, Proddatur. ...APPELLANT/OPPOSITE PARTY 2 AND Avula Mallikarjuna, S/o. Nagaiah @ Naganna, Hindu, aged 33 years, Occ; Previously Tractor Cooli, R/o. Bakkannagaripalli Village, Vempalli Mandal, Kadapa District. ...RESPONDENT N0.1/APPLICANT B. Bange Naik, S/o. Venkata Naik, age Major, Bakkannagaripalli Village, Vempalli Mandal, Kadapa District. (R2 dismissed for default vide C.O. dated 19.09.2011) ...RESPONDENT N0.2/OPPOSITE PARTY 1 :p-- LA. NO: 2 OF 2008(CMAMP. NO: 1690 OF 2008^ 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 16.04.2008 passed in WC No. 159/2005 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa, including the withdrawal the amount deposited, pending disposal of the above CMA. Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for Respondent No.1: SRI L J VEERA REDDY The Court made the following : of : SRI KANAKA SUNDAR GANTA " t APHC010150652013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY .THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 767/2013 [3460] Between: ...APPELLANT National Insurance Company Limited AND Avula Mallikarjuna And Another and...RESPONDENT(S) Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1. KANAKA SUNDAR GANTA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.LJVEERA REDDY The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.M.A No.767 of 2013 JUDGMENT:- The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 16.04.2008 in W.C.No.159 of 2005 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa. The facts leading to filing of the present Appeal are as 2. under:- The claimant was working as loading and unloading labour/Coolie on Tractor-Trailer bearing No.AP 04-C-5763 and 5764 respectively owned by O.P.1. On 01.07.2004 at about 10.00- a.m. the claimant and other coolies were proceeding on the Tractor-Trailer for loading and unloading mud in the land of O.P.1 and reached near Gajji Banda Botto of Bakkannagaripalli Village, the driver drove the Tractor in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost control over the vehicle due to which the Tractor-Trailer turned turtle. As a result, the claimant and other coolies received grievous injuries and were shifted to Government Hospital, Vempalli. The claimant sustained dislocation of right upper 2 V knee and left knee. The claimant was referred to Government Hospital, Kadapa and from there to S.V.R.R.Hospital, Tirupati where doctors found that the claimant’s left rami of pelvis and right rami of pelvis fractured and urine bladder also was damaged and a pipe was inserted in his penis and even now the claimant is passing urine through pipe. It was also stated that he incurred Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses. 3. It is also the case of the claimant that at the time of accident, he was earning Rs.4,000/- per month and he was aged 25 years. As the claimant was unable to drive any vehicle and lost his livelihood, he filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. It was pleaded that an amount of Rs.30,000/- was spent towards medical expenses, hospital charges, transportation etc. It was also pleaded that the Auto was insured with O.P.No.2 vide policy No.611200/31/05/01904 valid from 25.11.2005 to 24.11.2006. 4. Opposite Party No. 1/owner remained ex parte. 5. Opposite Party No.2/the insurance company filed its counter disputing the claim, the nature of injuries and the liability to pay compensation. It is also contended that as per f 3 4 / ^ F.I.R., the Tractor-Trailer was hired by one G.Sreenivasulu r Reddy to one Sri Ram Naik who in turn engaged 8 coolies. Thus, there is a clear violation of terms and conditions of policy and hence, insurance company cannot be liable to indemnify the liability of the O.P.No.1. On the^ basis of the pleadings, the Commissioner framed following issues: 6. “1. Whether the applicant is a workman as per the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and he met with accident and received grievous fracture injures arising out of and in the course of his employment? 2.What is the age of the applicant at the time of accident? 3. What are the wages paid to the applicant 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 and to what relief? In the course of evidence, claimant himself was 7. examined as A.W.1 and Dr. B.Narendra Dev was examined as A.W.2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 in support of his claim. 4 On behalf of the Respondents, Administrative Officer of O.P.2 examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B.1 policy was marked. 8. The Commissioner, after taking into consideration the evidence let in and by taking the age of the claimant as 30 years and percentage of loss of earning capacity as 40% by fixing monthly wages @ Rs.2568.75/- per month, awarded an amount of Rs.1,28,220/- besides stamp duties of Rs.500/- to be paid by Opposite Parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the insurance company. 9. Heard Sri Kanaka Sundar Ganta, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the Respondents. As the notice to Respondent No.2 i.e. owner of the vehicle was not served in the Appeal, this Court 19.09.2011 passed the following order:- 10. on “The counsel for appellant/s is/are permitted to take out fresh batta to respondent No.2 and personal notice to the concerned respondents to correct address by registered post with acknowledgment due, or by courier service, and file proof of service i within a period of four (04) weeks, failing which, the appeal stands dismissed as against whom the notice to be served and also for non-prosecution. \ V 5 / Further, if any of the respondents or the parties died, the appellant/s is/are directed to bring the legal representatives on record, within four (4) weeks, failing which, the appeal stands abated and liable for dismissal for non-prosecution. If any parties are necessary parties and notice is not necessary, a memo be filed to that effect for recording the same. ” 11. As the order was not complied with, the appeal against the owner/0.P.No.1/Respondent No.2 stood dismissed as per the endorsement made by the Registry. No application was filed seeking to set-aside the default order. 12. As the appeal against the owner/ O.P.No. 1/Respondent No.2 stood dismissed for non- compliance of the above quoted peremptory order, the impugned order of the Commissioner making owner/0.P.No. 1 “jointly and severally” liable to pay the compensation had attained finality vis-a-vis the owner/0.P.No. 1/Respondent No.2. As the “joint and several liability” stood crystallised in view of dismissal of the appeal against O.P.No.l-owner/Respondent No.2, the vicarious liability which was indemnified by the appellant also attained finality. 13. The other ground that was urged was that the deceased, being a workman and traveling in a 6 Tractor/Trailer, is not covered under the policy premium was paid to cover his liability. It is the contention of the counsel for the Appellant that the policy does not the labourer-deceased traveling in the vehicle. The insurance policy was marked as Ex.B.1. as no cover 14. Section 145(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 amended vide the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 elaborating the term ‘third party’. As per the amended definition, ‘third party’ includes persons other than the and the driver. was owner The amended Section 145 (1) reads as under: 145 (i) “third party’’ includes the Government, the driver and any other co-worker on a transport vehicle. 15. 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 only clarificatory and therefore it is applicable retrospectively covering the risk of the driver or any other co worker as third-party. IS 'SCC Online AP 4840 7 16. In this case, the injured being a loading and unloading worker cannot be said to be a gratuitous passenger and comes within the amended definition of ‘third party’ under section 145(i) of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 as it stands today and would be covered by Ex.B.1 Policy. 17. Hence,- the present appeal cannot be. entertained any further and the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 18. As there is long delay from the date of accident and considering the uncertain addresses of claimants, the State Legal Services Authority shall coordinate with the concerned departments and ensure that the compensation is paid to the claimants directly into their Aadhar linked bank account. Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the State Legal Services Authority. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District, (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri Kanaka Sundar Ganta, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri L J Veera Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Member Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, H.No.2-273/54-A, BSR Complex, Opposite to Traffic Police Station, Near A.P. Secretariat, Malkapuram Village, Thulluru Mandal, Guntur District-522238, Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh. 5. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. (to dispatch the trial court records) 6. Three CD Copies TK TAC HIGH COURT DATED:18/02/2025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.767 of 2013 4" 0 tn C9 Current Section <5 O A-r I' DISMISSING THE CMA