APHC010401642012 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: 309/2012 Between: The Divisional Manager, M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd., Kurnool. ...APPELLANT AND Vaniipenta Manikyamma And 4 Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SRINIVASA RAO KATAKAMSETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A JAYA SANKARA REDDY The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.309 of 2012 JUDGMENT: 1. The present C.M.A is filed under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 questioning the Order dated 23.10.2010 in W.C.No.18 of 2008 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nandyal, Kurnool 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:- One Vanipenta Doraswamy (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was employed as a Driver in a Lorry bearing No.AP-21-U-0859 owned by O.P.No.1. The deceased was regularly attending to his duties and accordingly on the instructions of O.P.No.1/owner, on 16.08.2001, the deceased went to Hyderabad with a load of husk from Allagadda and after unloading the same at Hyderabad, the deceased started to return with a load of maida and dal to Allagadda on 18.08.2001. On reaching the Gobaguddam Metta on the outskirts of Allagadda Town, the deceased stopped the vehicle and informed the Cleaner that he was suffering from severe stomach pain and later died on the spot. 4. A criminal case was registered by the Allagadda P.S., on 19.08.2001 in Cr.No.82 of 2001 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, an inquest and post-mortem were conducted. As per the Post-mortem Report, it was opined that the deceased could have died due to acute myocardial infraction (heart attack). Since the 3 death occurred in the course of employment, an application was filed by the mother and children of the deceased against the employer/O.P.No.1. As the vehicle was insured vide Policy No.051102/31/16/639750/01, the O.P.No.2-Insurance Company was arrayed as party-respondent. 5. O.P.No.1/employer did not contest the case and remained ex parte. The O.P.No.2-Insurance Company filed its counter opposing the claim on the ground that there is no nexus between the cause of death and the employment. Various other grounds were urged denying the claim regarding the employment and wages were also disputed. 6. In the course of enquiry, Claimant No.1 i.e. mother of the deceased was examined as P.W.1, she reiterated the averments made in the application and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 i.e. F.I.R, Inquest Report, Post-Mortem Certificate, Copy of Regd. Notice, Original Postal Receipt and Extract of Driving License respectively. 7. One Yedula Sikhamani, who was working as a Cleaner in the lorry on the date of accident was examined as P.W.2 and he reiterated the claim averments. In his deposition, P.W.2 had stated that the vehicle was being driven by the deceased with a load of husk from Allagadda to Hyderabad and again was returning from Hyderabad with a load of dal and maida to Allagadda. He stated that at about 11.00 p.m. when the vehicle reached near Allagadda, the deceased died due to severe stomach pain. 8. O.P.No.2-Insurance Company also examined its Branch Manager as R.W.1 and through him Ex.B.1 Insurance Policy was marked. 4 9. The Commissioner after examining the evidence on record and Section 3(1) of the Act and considering that the Act is a piece of social security legislation awarded compensation of Rs.3,41,998/- by taking into consideration the minimum wages payable to the Driver at the rate of Rs.3,471/- per month as per G.O.Ms.No.81, L.E.T & F (Lab.II) Dept., dated 02.12.2000 and by fixing the age of the deceased as 35 years by relying on Ex.A.6 Driving License. Hence, the present C.M.A is filed. 10. Heard Mr. Srinivasa Rao Katamsetty, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company. 11. The only ground, the counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company urged is that the nature of death cannot be classified to be an accident for awarding compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. It was further contended that only when the death is due to bodily injury or any partial disability, the compensation can be awarded under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. The counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shakuntala Chandrakanth Shreshti vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and Another1. 12. This Court having considered the submissions of the counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company is of the opinion that the deceased was driving the vehicle from Allagadda to Hyderabad with a load of husk and was returning with a load of dal and maida from Hyderabad to Allagadda. The very fact that the death occurred while 1 (2007) 11 SCC 668 5 the deceased was driving the vehicle per se is indicative of the contribution of stress and strain to the death of the deceased due to myocardial infraction (heart attack). 13. This Court in Depot Manager, APSRTC, Karimnagar v. GurrapuAnjamma2, opined that the death by heart attack was covered under Employees Compensation Act, 1923. This aspect was further reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in JyothiAdemma v. Plant Engineer, Nellore & Another3, wherein, it was opined that if the employment is the contributory cause or has accelerated the death or if the death was not only due to the disease but also disease coupled with employment, then the death could be said to be in the course of employment. 14. A similar view on similar facts was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Param Pal Singh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another4. In that case, the deceased was driving a truck. He felt chest pain and had stopped the truck safely. Immediately he was rushed to the hospital. But he died. After post-mortem it was opined that the cause of the death was heart attack. In that factual background, it was contended that death of the deceased was due to natural causes and the death had no casual connection to his employment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the English cases and Indian cases and after referring to Section 3(1) of the Employees Compensation Act held at para 29 as under: ‘29. Applying the various principles laid down in the above decisions to the facts of this case, we can validly conclude that there was causal connection to the death 21999 5 ALT 684 32006(5)SCC 513 42013 (3) SCC 409 6 of the deceased with that of his employment as a truck driver. We cannot lose sight of the fact that a 45-year-old driver meets with his unexpected death, may be due to heart failure while driving the vehicle from Delhi to a distant place called Nimiaghat near Jharkhand which is about 1152 km away from Delhi, would have definitely undergone grave strain and stress due to such long distance driving. The deceased being a professional heavy vehicle driver when undertakes the job of such driving as his regular avocation it can be safely held that such constant driving of heavy vehicle, being dependent solely upon his physical and mental resources and endurance, there was every reason to assume that the vocation of driving was a material contributory factor if not the sole cause that accelerated his unexpected death to occur which in all fairness should be held to be an untoward mishap in his lifespan. Such an “untoward mishap” can therefore be reasonably described as an “accident” as having been caused solely attributable to the nature of employment indulged in with his employer which was in the course of such employer's trade or business.’ 15. A similar view was taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in C. Manjamma Vs New India Insurance5. In this case also, the deceased had suffered heart attack while driving the lorry and the regularity of constant driving of lorry with load is the causative factor for the death of the deceased due to stress and strain. Therefore, this Court does not find any substantial question of law in this Appeal. 5 2022(6) SCC 206 7 16. Accordingly, the C.M.A is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. As the incident pertains to the year 2001 i.e. 25 years have lapsed and considering the uncertain addresses of the Claimants, the State Legal Services Authority is directed to coordinate with the concerned Departments and intimate the outcome of the Appeal and ensure that the compensation with accrued interest is deposited in the Aadhar linked bank account of the Claimants. 18. 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 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.309 of 2012 Date: 25.02.2025 IS