IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 778 OF 2011 Appeal filed under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, against the Order dated 21-01-2011 passed in WC.No.12 of 2009 by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act and Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Narasapuram, West Godavari District, A.P., for the following grounds among other. Order copy received on 2-6-2011 along with Advocate Opinion Letter advising to prefer Appeal. Between: The Branch Manager, M/s. National Insurance Co.,Ltd., J.P.Road, Bhimnavaram, West Godavari District. ...APPELLANT/OPPOSITEPARTY N0.2 AND 1. Smt. Katta Kanaka Durga, W/o Srinivas, Mandapadu Village, Akividu Mandal, West Godavari District. 2. Katta Koteswara Rao, S/o Venkanna, Mandapadu Village, Akividu Mandal, West Godavari District. 3. Smt. Katta Seetha Maha Lakshmi, W/o Koteswara Rao, Mandapadu Village, Akividu Mandal, West Godavari District. ...RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS 4. Pulipaka Visweswara Rao, S/o Satya Narayana, Driver cum Owner of the Tractor No.AP 27D 3001 Mandapadu Village, Akividu Mandal, West Godavari District. (Respondent No.4 is dismissed vide Court Order Dt: 08/) ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant : SMT MANIMMA MEDIDA Counsel for the Respondents : SRI Y V RAVI PRASAD The Court made the following JUDGMENT : APHC010238972011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 778/2011 Between: The Branch Manager, M/s Natinal Insurance ...APPELLANT Co.,ltd.bhimavaram AND Smt Katta Kanaka Durga And 3 Others ...RESPONDENT(S) and Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1. MANIMMA MEDIDA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. YVRAVI PRASAD The Court made the following: 4.^ HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.M.A No.778 of 2011 JUDGMENT:- The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 21.01.2011 in W.C.No.12 of 2009 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Narsapuram, West Godavari District. 2. The facts leading to filing of the present Appeal are as under:- Claimants are the wife and parents of one Katta Srinivas (herein after referred to as ‘deceased’). As per the claimants, the deceased was working under O.P.No.1 as a permanent labour and cleaner of tractor bearing No. AP 27 D 3001. On 25.06.2009, O.P.No.1 took the deceased to Mandapadu Village to plough the fish tank with his tractor. The deceased was said to be removing the earth from the blades of the tractor while the tractor was ploughing the tank. In the said process, the deceased fell under the tractor and suffered grievous injuries. Immediately, while the deceased was being shifted'-to-ASRAM Hospital, Eluru and before reaching the I 2 hospital, the deceased died. As the deceased had died during of employment, claim application was filed seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. the course 3. Employer/0.P.No.1 filed counter admitting that the deceased was working in his house as well as in the field on admitted that the his tractor in ploughing operations. It was main job of the deceased was to assist O.P.No.1 in ploughing essential for the ploughing operations and that he was very operations. In the counter, it was also pleaded that the month as salary and deceased was paid Rs.3,000/- per Rs.50/- as batta. O.P.No.2/lnsurance company filed counter disputing the allegations that the deceased was employed as labour and cleaner of Tractor of O.P.No.1 among other' grounds. It also contended that the deceased was sitting on the blades of the tractor knowing fully well of the danger, hence, he is not entitled to claim any compensation. 4. was On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed by the Commissioner; 1 Whether the deceased Workmen is working with O.P.No.1? 5. 'X, 3 2. Whether the deceased Workman died while on duty and whether the accident is occurred during the course of employment? 3. What are the wage and age particulars to determine the quantum of compensation? 4. Whether all the parties are liable to pay compensation or not? 6. In the course of evidence, the wife of the deceased was examined as A.W.1 and ExsA1 to A.4 were marked in support of her claim. No oral or documentary evidence was let in by the Respondents. 7. Taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, the Commissioner held that the deceased was working under O.P.No.1 and had died in the course of employment. • The wages of the deceased were fixed at Rs.3,485/- per month as per G.O.Ms.No.83 dated 22.11.2006 and by adopting the age at 22 years as per the post-mortem report, the Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.3,83,263/- by making the O.P.Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable for the compensation. Hence, the present appeal is filed. 8. Heard Smt. Medida Manimma, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri Y.V.Ravi prasad, learned counsel for the Respondents. As the notice to Respondent No.4 i.e. owner of the vehicle was not served in the Appeal, this Court 08.07.2016 passed the following order; “Learned counsel for petitioner(s)/appellant(s) is permitted to take out personal notice to respondent No.4 through Registered Post with acknowledgment due and file proof of service within four weeks. Failing which, petition/appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court as against respondent No.4.” As the order was not complied with, the appeal against the owner/0.P.No.1/Respondent No.4 stood dismissed as per the endorsement made by the Registry. No application was filed seeking to set-aside the default order. The Joint and several liability’ on O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 as per the order of the Commissioner attained finality in view of the dismissal of the appeal against the O.P.No.l/Respondent No.4. 9. on 10. Even on merits, the contention that the deceased was not supposed to sit on the blades of the tractor while ploughing and as the deceased had sat knowing fully well the danger of the consequences, he is not entitled to seek for compensation. This objection of the counsel for the Appellant may not be sustained as Schedule III of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 provides list of occupational diseases caused on account of exposure to certain nature of 11. 5 works to the workmen. The Schedule III recognizes the occupational hazards in various types of works though this list may not be considered to be an exhaustive one. The evidence of O.P.No.1 is that the deceased was necessary in the discharge of ploughing operations in the fish ponds and the nature of work is such that he had to sit on the blades for cleaning them while ploughing. Therefore, by mere sitting above the ploughing blades may not be a ground to deny any compensation to the deceased. 12. The last contention that the counsel raised is that no premium was paid to the deceased workman and only an act policy was taken by the O.P.No.1, Section 145 (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was amended vide the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 elaborating the term ‘third party’. As per the amehded definition, ‘third party’ includes persons other than the owner and the driver. 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. 13. This Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Savidi Anjaneyulu^ has held that the amendment to the definition of ‘ see Online AP 4840 6 Section 145 (i) of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 is only clahficatory and therefore it is applicable retrospectively covering the risk of the driver or any other co worker as third-party. In this case the deceased being a permanent labour 15. and cleaner 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 the Insurance Policy. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with 16. the order passed by the Commissioner and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed without costs. As there is long time delay from the date of accident 17. 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. 7 it.' As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- E.KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR fr 9^ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Narasapuram, West Godavari District 2. One CC to Smt. Manimma Medida Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Y V Ravi Prasad Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Member Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, H.N0.2-273/54-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 Amaravati. 6. Three CD Copies SAM TAC HIGH COURT DATED:17/02/2025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.778 of 2011 17 MAR 2025 Co: ^ . Current Section ^ DISMISSING THE C.M.A