APHC010303492023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 227/2023 Between: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., ...APPELLANT AND Smt Nakka Rajini and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: B PARAMESEWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): P V N KIRAN KUMAR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation Act and Assistant Commissioner of Labour at Vijayawada (hereinafter called as ‘the Commissioner’), in W.C.No.5 of 2022 dated 06.02.2023. 2. The insurer of the Lorry bearing No.AP 16 TC 1025 (hereinafter referred to as “Lorry”) belonging to the 6th respondent herein, is the appellant. The respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein, who are wife, children, and mother of one Nakka 2 Ramesh (hereinafter after called as “deceased”), are the applicants before the Commissioner. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the Commissioner. 4. The case of the applicants, in the application before the Commissioner is that: i). On 18.05.2018 at about 06.30 a.m., as per instructions of opposite party No.1, when the deceased went to Ramco Depot, Kalingavihar Tamando, Bhuvaneswar for unloading the lorry, he felt pain over his chest and immediately the Co-drivers took him to Capital Hospital, BBSR. While undergoing treatment, the deceased died. ii). The brother of the deceased by name Nakka Babu Sundar gave report to Tamando Police at Bhuvaneswar and registered the same as a case in Cr.No.3 of 2018 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. under Ex.P.1 iii). The deceased died due to work pressure and heavy stress as a lorry driver during the course of his 3 employment under opposite party No.1. He was earning Rs.15,000/- per month as salary in addition batta of Rs.500/- per day. When they approached the opposite part No.1 for compensation, he bluntly refused to pay the same. The said Lorry was validly insured with the opposite party No.2. Hence, the application before the Commissioner claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- against opposite part Nos.1 and 2. 5. The opposite party No.1 remained exparte before the Commissioner. 6. The opposite party No.2 filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the death of the deceased was not occurred due to accidental injuries and occurred due to Heart attack; that there is no stress and strain to the deceased at the time of his death, thereby, this party is not liable to pay any compensation to the applicants and prays to dismiss the application. 4 7. The Commissioner settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1.Whether the deceased Sri Nakka Ramesh was a workman U/s.2(1)(n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act at the time of his death and the deceased had died during and out of the course of employment? 2.Whether or not the OP2 is liable to Pay Compensation amount as the workmen died with heart attack? 3.If so, what is the age and wage of the deceased at the time of his death? and 4.What is the amount of compensation and from which date the compensation amount is due?” 8. During enquiry, on behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.15 were exhibited. On behalf of the opposite party No.2, its official was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked. 9. On the material placed on record, the Commissioner held that the deceased died in an accident during the course and out of his employment under the opposite party No.1 and as the policy was in force at the time of incident, directed the appellant and opposite party No.1/respondent No.6 herein to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.7,47,600/- by way of demand draft drawn in favour of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation 5 and Joint Commissioner of Labour at Eluru, payable on SBI, Eluru Bazaar at Eluru, within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of order. 10. It is against the said order; the present civil miscellaneous appeal was preferred by the appellant/insurer. 11. Heard Sri B.Parameswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and Sri P.V.N.Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5/applicants. 12. Now, the points that arise for determination are: 1. Whether the deceased was a workman under the lorry belonging to the 6th respondent herein, if so, there is employee and employee relationship between them? 2.Whether the policy issued by the appellant does cover the risk of the deceased? and 3.To what relief ? 13. POINT NOs.1 & 2: Shorn of the facts and evidence as placed on record explicitly establishes that the wife, children, and mother of the deceased have filed the claim application and established their case before the Commissioner. 6 14. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer is that the applicants failed to establish that the deceased died during the course of employment, as such, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the applicants. 15. In view of the above contention, this Court perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that by the date of incident, the deceased was working as driver under the Lorry belonging to the respondent No.6 herein, which was validly insured under Ex.B.1 policy issued by the appellant. 16. It is the specific case of the applicants before the Commissioner that the deceased died due to the stress and strain in attending his duty as lorry driver, resulted heart attack during the course of employment and he had no previous history of illness. To fortify the same, the applicants relied upon the testimony of A.W.1 coupled with Exs.A.1to A.3, A.12 and A.13, which categorically show that by the date of incident, the deceased was under the employment of respondent No.6 as lorry driver. 7 17. Furthermore, except bare testimony of R.W.1, who is official of appellant company, no substantial material was placed on record to say that the deceased was not died during and out of the course of his employment under respondent No.6, thereby, the said contention has no legs to stand. Moreover, on perusal of Ex.B.1 policy categorically shows that it covers the risk of driver and cleaner whenever they met with an accident or incident, as such, the appellant cannot be escaped from its liability to pay compensation under Ex.B.1 contract. 18. Coming to the quantum of compensation granted by the Commissioner is concerned, even the applicants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month as driver of the lorry besides batta of Rs.500/- per day, in the absence of substantial material on record to prove the actual income of the deceased, by duly following the minimum wages prescribed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for the category of labourer working in Public Motor Transport undertakings and as per the Workmen’s Compensation Act, taken monthly income of deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month and arrived at calculations 8 for awarding compensation. Moreover, there is no dispute regarding wages of the deceased as well as calculations made by the Commissioner in awarding compensation to the applicants. Therefore, the Commissioner had calculated the wages as per the formula as envisaged in the Workmen’s Compensation Act and rightly arrived at compensation of Rs.7,47,600/-, which is liable to be paid by the appellant as well 6th respondent herein jointly and severally. The Commissioner after duly considering the material on record passed the well-articulated order and nothing found in the appeal warrants interference of this Court. Thus, these points are answered accordingly. 19. POINT NO.3: In view of the findings on point Nos.1 and 2, this civil miscellaneous appeal is liable to be dismissed. 20. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour at Vijayawada, in W.C.No.5 of 2022 dated 06.02.2023. The balance amount, if any, in deposit payable to the respondent Nos.1 to 9 5(applicants) herein shall be released by the Commissioner without insisting for any security. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date: 18.03.2025 Krs 10 515 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS C.M.A.No.227 of 2023 (J U D G M E N T) DATE: 18.03.2025 Krs