APHC010243902011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1303/2011 Between: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Anantapur. ...APPELLANT AND Chavva Guramma & 2 Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. S A V RATNAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N SASIKALA The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1303 of 2011 JUDGMENT: 1. The present C.M.A is filed under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 questioning the Order dated 02.05.2008 in W.C.No.21 of 2003 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 2. The O.P.No.2-Insurance Company is the Appellant herein. 3. The facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as follows:- The claim application was filed by the mother and sister of One C. Eswar Reddy (hereinafter referred as ‘deceased’). The deceased was employed under O.P.No.1 as Hamali to the Tractor & Trailer bearing Nos.AP-02-T-7933 & 7934 for doing loading and unloading works. On 09.04.1999, the deceased accompanied the said Tractor & Trailer as Hamali on the instructions of O.P.No.1 for doing his loading and unloading works. While going to the fields of O.P.No.1, the Driver of the Tractor & Trailer lost control over the vehicle when it had reached near Harijanawada Cross in Bathalapalli Village and a result, the deceased was thrown out of the Trailer and the Trailer ran over him causing instant death. 4. A criminal case was registered as Cr.No.20 of 1999 under Section 304-A of IPC of Bathalapalli P.S., against the Driver of the Tractor & Trailer. 3 5. As the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month as wages, compensation of Rs.2,17,000/- including expenses was sought. 6. The owner of the Tractor & Trailer and as the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company vide policy No.1620/93, which was valid from 10.11.1998 to 09.11.1999 they were made parties to the case as O.P.Nos.1 & 2 respectively. 7. As O.P.No.1 i.e. owner did not contest the case he was set ex parte, while O.P.No.2-Insurance Company filed its counter denying the age, income and other factual aspects of the case. 8. Based on the pleadings, the Commissioner framed the following issues for consideration:- 1) Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of W.C. Act, 1923 and he met with an accident during the course and out of his employment resulting in his death? 2) Whether this Authority has got jurisdiction to try the subject matter or not? 3) What was the age of the deceased at the time of his accident? 4) What was the wages paid to the deceased at the time of accident? 5) What amount of compensation is payable to the applicants and who are liable? 9. The mother of the deceased was examined as A.W.1 and she reiterated the averments made in the claim application and through her Exs.A.1 to A.5 i.e. Certified copy of F.I.R, Certified copy of Inquest Report, Attested copy of Post-mortem Report, Office copy of Legal Notice and Acknowledgment respectively were marked. 4 10. O.P.No.2-Insurance Company examined its employee as R.W.1 and through him Exs.B.1 to B.3 i.e. Insurance policy, Section 161 Cr.P.C Statements and Certified copy of Charge sheet respectively were marked. 11. The Commissioner taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence allowed the application and granted compensation of Rs.1,69,082/- taking into consideration the minimum wages payable to Hamali as per G.O.Ms.No.71, dated 16.04.1999 by taking the age of the deceased as 25 years. Hence, the present C.M.A is filed. 12. Heard Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel for the Appellant- Insurance Company and Smt. N. Sasikala, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents. 13. In the present appeal, the only ground urged was that the Claimants are not the legal heirs of the deceased. 14. The counsel for the Respondents contended that the Claimants are not the dependents on the income of the deceased as they are not the mother and sister of the deceased. 15. This Court after hearing the arguments of the respective counsels, is of the opinion that the Commissioner in the order had taken note of the said objection and noted that no evidence was established by O.P.No.2-Insurance Company in spite of number of adjournments to file evidence and since no evidence was not produced to show that the Claimant No.2 is not the son of the Claimant No.1. 5 16. Therefore, to re-agitate this claim before this Court in the absence of any evidence, does not find any merit. Further, the plausible view taken by the Commissioner cannot be a ground to reverse the finding considering the scope of appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. [See: Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav & Anr. Vs. New India Assurance Co., Ltd., & Anr1]. 17. Therefore this Court does not find any merit in the grounds urged in the appeal and consequently the C.M.A stands dismissed. 18. Since the accident had occurred in the year 1999 and considering the time gap of 26 years and the uncertain addresses of the Claimants, the State Legal Services Authority shall coordinate with the concerned Departments and inform the Claimants of the outcome of the appeal and ensure that the compensation is paid to the Claimants directly into their Aadhar linked bank account at the earliest. 19. 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: 24.02.2025 IS 1 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 746 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1303 of 2011 Date: 24.02.2025 IS