APHC010225582011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 242/2011 Between: United India Insurance Company Limited ...APPELLANT AND Madduru Penchalaiah & Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. NARESH BYRAPANENI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K KANAKA RAJU 2. K SRINIVAS The Court made the following: 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.M.A No.242 of 2011 JUDGMENT:- 1. The present C.M.A is filed under Order dated 10.07.2009 in W.C.No.105 of 2005 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 2. O.P.No.2-Insurance Company is the Appellant herein. 3. The facts leading to filing of the present Appeal are as under:- One Madduru Penchalaiah (hereinafter referred to as “Claimant”) was working as a Coolie on the Tractor & Trailer bearing No.AP-04-ATR-0255 owned by O.P.No.1, which was insured with O.P.No.2-Insurance Company vide Policy bearing No.050904/ 47/ 03/00731 valid from 07.01.2004 to 06.01.2005. 4. While so, on 13.08.2004, on the instructions of O.P.No.1/owner of the vehicle, the Claimant along with other coolies in the Tractor & Trailer proceeded to the land of one Bovillamdi Gopal Reddy, loaded the manure into the Trailer and sat on the manure load. The driver of the Tractor & Trailer drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, lost control over the vehicle and swerved the vehicle on the road, due to which, the Claimant fell from the vehicle and sustained fracture injuries on his right leg, left leg and other parts of the body. Immediately, the Claimant was shifted to a Private Hospital at Badvel and thereafter shifted to Government Hospital, Kadapa for better treatment. The Claimant also went to Puttur Bone Setting Centre, Puttur for the treatment to the fractures. Due to the accident, the Claimant became 3 permanently disabled. A criminal case was also registered vide Cr.No.39 of 2004 by the Atloor P.S., against the driver of the Tractor under Section 337 of IPC. As the Claimant was aged 35 years, became permanently disabled, lost the earning capacity and as he was the only earning person in the family and getting Rs.150/- per day as wage, the application was filed seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 5. O.P.No.1 i.e. owner of the Tractor & Trailer remained ex parte. 6. O.P.No.2 i.e. Insurance Company filed its Written Statement denying the manner of accident, employment of the Claimant under O.P.No.1/owner of the Tractor & Trailer and denied to pay compensation. 7. On the basis of the pleadings, the Commissioner framed the following issues: 1) Whether the applicant is a workman as per the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and he met with accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting into disability and loss of earning capacity? 2) What was the age of the injured applicant at the time of accident? 3) What was the wages paid to the injured applicant at the time of accident? 4) What is the loss of earning capacity suffered and permanent disability percentage faced by the injured applicant? 4 5) What is the quantum of compensation payable to the applicant? 6) Who are liable to pay the compensation? 8. In the course of evidence, the Claimant himself was examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 i.e. Attested copy of F.I.R, Attested copy of Wound Certificate, Attested copy of Charge Sheet, Disability Certificate with 30% disability and X-ray respectively in support of his claim. Dr.C.Sanjeevaiah, Orthopaedic Doctor was also examined as A.W.2. 9. On behalf of the O.P.No.2-Insurance Company, one S. Naganna, working as A.D.M in the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1 and through him Ex.B.1 Registration Certificate and Ex.B.2 Insurance Policy were marked. 10. The Commissioner, after taking into consideration the evidence let in, awarded compensation of Rs.75,641/- to be paid by O.P.Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally. Hence, the present C.M.A is filed by O.P.No.2-Insurance Company. 11. Heard Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company and Sri K. Kanaka Raju and Sri K. Srinivas, learned counsel for the Respondents. 12. The only contention of the counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company/O.P.No.2 is that the vehicle was being used for the purpose other than the purpose the vehicle was insured i.e. non- agricultural purposes though the vehicle was insured to agricultural purpose only. 5 13. This Court after hearing the counsel for Appellant notes that no issue was framed on this aspect before the Commissioner. Notwithstanding the same, the vehicle was carrying manure on the date of accident and it is a matter of common knowledge that the manure would be required only for agricultural operations and therefore the contention that the vehicle was being used for the purpose other than the agriculture cannot be sustained. 14. Therefore, the present C.M.A is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. Since the accident had occurred in the year 2004 and considering the time gap of 21 years and the uncertain address of the Claimant, the State Legal Services Authority shall coordinate with the concerned Departments and inform the Claimant of the outcome of the appeal and ensure that the compensation is paid to the Claimant directly into his Aadhar linked bank account at the earliest. 16. The Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the State Legal Services Authority for taking necessary action. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 25.02.2025 IS 6 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.M.A No.242 of 2011 Date: 25.02.2025 IS