APHC010027132025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 1562/2025 Between: K Surendran ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V VENKATA MAYUR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. MUNI REDDY PERURU (SC FOR TUDA) 3. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS 4. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 5. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.M.A.No.106 of 2014 JUDGMENT: The present appeal is filed aggrieved by the Order dated 25.03.2011 in W.C.No.41 of 2007 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam. 2. The facts leading to the appeal are as follows: The Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the claimants. As per the claim petition, the deceased was working as loading and unloading labourer in the lorry bearing No. AP 31 V 959 owned by respondent No.5. On 14.06.2001, the deceased along with other labourers boarded the lorry on the instructions of Respondent No.5; loaded the lorry with bricks at Yellavaram Hill for transporting to Ravidi. The lorry had reached Rajamgiri Satyam fields at about 10.30 hours and due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry, the lorry dashed against an electric pole and in the accident, the deceased died. The Bheemili Police registered a case in Crime No.175 of 2001 under Section 304 A IPC. As the deceased died in the course of employment, the claim was made seeking compensation. 3. In the claim application, it was pleaded that the deceased was earning a monthly salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. Though the Respondent No.5 received the notice and engaged an advocate, did not file any counter and was set ex parte. The insurance company-O.P.No.2 filed their counter disputing the employer-employee relationship and the liability. On behalf of the claimants, Akula Narayana, i.e. Respondent No.1 herein was examined as AW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. Another person by name P.Pydi Raju was examined as AW.2, who had deposed that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and due to which the deceased had died. 4. The insurance company examined one Sri T.Ramakrishna working as Assistant Legal as its witness R.W.1. He stated that as per Ex.B.1- Insurance Policy, though the premium was paid towards own damages, third-party claims, legal liability of passengers, NFPP for employees and for third-party property damages, for coverage to labourers a separate premium will be collected and that would be reflected in the policy. 5. The Commissioner held that both the insurance company as well as owner of the vehicle is liable for compensation and awarded compensation of Rs.2,11,779/- taking the wages of the deceased at Rs.1,871/- per month. The wages adopted by the Commissioner are at minimum wages payable to the class of the deceased as per G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 27.07.2000. Hence, the present appeal is filed. 6. Heard Sri Sravan Kumar Mannava, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri S.N.K.Mahanthi, learned counsel for the Respondents. 7. The only ground urged by the counsel for the Appellant was that the Commissioner had committed an error in fixing the liability on the Insurance Company even though no specific premium was taken towards the labourers engaged by the owner of the vehicle. In the evidence of RW.1, the policy taken by the owner of the vehicle-Respondent No.5 covers the following risks: 1. Basic Premium for own damages: Rs.7,534.00 2. Baic Premium for third party: Rs.2,779.00 3. Legal liability of Passengers/NFPP Rs. 50.00 4. For employees (Vehicle) Rs. 45.00 5. For third party property damages(unlimited) Rs. 75.00 Total Rs.10,483.00 8. As per the policy, the ‘employees’ and ‘third parties’ are also covered. There is no dispute to the fact that the deceased was engaged by the owner of the vehicle-Respondent No. 5 and he qualifies to be an ‘employee’ and the claimants would be entitled for compensation on this ground. Alternatively, the claimants would be entitled for compensation as the policy covers claims for ‘third parties’. The deceased was a loading and unloading worker and cannot be termed to be a gratuitous passenger. As per the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act 2019, all persons other than the owner can come under the amended definition of ‘third party’. The Section 145 (i) reads as under: 145 (i) “third party” includes the Government, the driver and any other co-worker on a transport vehicle. 9. This Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Savidi Anjaneyulu1 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’. Therefore, the deceased would come under the definition of ‘third party’ and is entitled for compensation. 10. In that view, this Court does not find any substantial question of law to interfere with the findings arrived at by the Commissioner and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed without costs. The State Legal Services Authority shall ensure that the compensation is paid to the claimants directly into their Aadhar linked bank account. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 27.01.2025 KLP 1 SCC OnLine AP 4840