APHC010210522009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3459] PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1172 of 2009 Between: 1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, OFFICE SITUATED AT LIONS CLUB BUILDING NEAR PADMASREE THEATRE, THANUKU - 534 211. ...APPELLANT AND 1. B. KUTTI, S/O. LATE S. BALARAJU, R/O. D.NO.24/165, SATYANARAYANAPURAM, C.G.PALLI (P), CHITTOOR TOWN AND MANDAL. 2. SMT B. SYAMALA, W/O. LATE S. BALARAJU, R/O. D.NO. 24/165, SATYANARAYANAPURAM, C.G.PALLI (P), CHITTOOR TOWN AND MANDAL. 3. S. DHARMENDER, M/S. GAGAN TOURS & TRAVELS OWNER OF THE BUS BEARING NO.AP-09-Y-1333 R/O. H.NO.103-4-22, VIJAYASREE APARTMENTS, BEGUMPET, HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S) Appeal under Section_____against orders IA No.1 OF 2009 (CMAMP 1286 OF 2009) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, JS,J CMA No.1172/2009 2 the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 19 days in filing the appeal. IA No.2 OF 2009 (CMAMP 1369 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 stay all further proceedings including the withdrawal of the money deposited before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Deputy Commissioner Labour, Tirupathi in WC No.8 of 2006 dated 06-04- 2009. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. JAVVAJI SARATH CHANDRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K. ANNAPURNA REDDY 2. T. C.KRISHNAN The Court made the following: JS,J CMA No.1172/2009 3 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, „the WC Act‟), is filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party-II aggrieved by the order, dated 06.04.2009, passed in W.C. Case No.8 of 2006 by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirupati (for short, „the Labour Court‟). The Labour Court allowed the Workmen Compensation Case and directed both the opposite parties jointly and severally to deposit an amount of Rs.4,19,840/- before the Labour Court along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the accident until realization, against the original claim of Rs.5,00,000/-. 2. Heard Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party-II; Sri T.C. Krishnan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/applicants; and Smt. K. Annapurna Reddy, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, and perused the material available on record. 3. For convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Labour Court. 4. The case of the applicants, in brief, is that on 14.09.2005, the driver of the bus bearing No.AP-09-Y-1333, belonging to Opposite Party-I, started the bus from Chittoor to Hyderabad. The driver of the bus, Sri V. Bhasker Reddy, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a stationed lorry near Sirivella Police Station, Kurnool District. Due to this impact, the deceased, B. JS,J CMA No.1172/2009 4 Damu @ Selvam, who was also an additional driver of the vehicle under Opposite Party-I, sustained multiple injuries and died while undergoing treatment on 16.09.2005. The deceased was 27 years old and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The first applicant is the younger brother, the second applicant is the widowed stepmother of the deceased, and they depend on his income. Due to his sudden demise, both the applicants are deprived of his earnings. 5. On the date of the accident, the offending vehicle had a valid insurance policy in force. Opposite Party-I, the owner of the vehicle, remained ex parte before the Labour Court. Opposite Party-II, the insurer, denied the existence of a master and servant relationship between Opposite Party-I and the deceased. Additionally, the insurer claimed that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and stated they were not liable to pay any compensation to the applicants. 6. During the course of the trial, AWs.1 to AW.3 were examined on behalf of the applicants, and Exs.A-1 to A-9 were marked. On behalf of the Opposite Parties, none were examined and no documents were marked. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the records, and based on the evidence of AW.2 and AW.3, it is apparent that the deceased was in the bus as an additional driver and was on duty at the time of the accident, i.e., on 14.09.2005. Therefore, the Opposite Parties cannot claim that there was no master and servant relationship between Opposite Party- JS,J CMA No.1172/2009 5 1/Owner and the deceased. Regarding the compensation awarded by the Labour Court, since the applicants did not submit any documents regarding the deceased's income before the Labour Court, the Court rightly considered G.O.Ms.No.81, dated 29.03.2001, to calculate the deceased's monthly wages and correctly fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/-, leading to the award of Rs.4,19,840/- as compensation. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has relied on Para 21 of the judgement of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha1, wherein it is held thus: “21. As early as in 1975, a four-Judge Bench of this Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata {(1976) 1 SCC 289} has held that an employer becomes liable to pay compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workman in the accident which arose out of and in the course of employment. It was accordingly held that it is the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim, which is material.” 8. The Opposite Parties did not mark any documents before the Labour Court to establish their case. The Labour Court has found that the accident occurred due to the bus driver's rash and negligent driving. Since there is evidence that the deceased, B. Damu, was an Additional Driver on the bus, which was also accepted by AW.2 and AW.3 during their cross-examination, this Court fully agrees with the findings given by the Labour Court; therefore, the impugned order need not be interfered with. 1 (2019) 11 SCC 514 JS,J CMA No.1172/2009 6 9. The decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Mubasir Ahmed and others2 was followed in Ajaya Kumar Das and another v. Divisional Manager and another3 wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held that the applicants are entitled for interest from the date of accident and not from the date of adjudication. 10. In view of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Mubasir Ahmed (2nd supra) and Ajaya Kumar Das (3rd supra), respondent Nos.1 and 2/applicants are entitled for interest @ 12% p.a. on the compensation amount from the date of accident till the date of realisation. In order to do substantial justice to the applicants, the impugned order is modified and both the opposite parties are directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the amount awarded by the Labour Court from the date of accident till the date of realization. The opposite parties are directed to release the balance amount to the applicants forthwith. 11. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date:19.08.2025 DSH 2 (2007) 2 SCC 349 3 Civil Appeal No.447, Dt.24.01.2022