IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 368 OF 2014 Appeal under Section 30 of W.C Act aganist by the order in WC.No.83/2008 on the file of the court of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour at Kadapa, dated. 20/02/2012. Between: The Reliance General Insurance Company, Rep by its Legal Manager, Sagar Plaza, 4th Floor, 4-3-327 to 337, Abids Road, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/2^° OPPOSITE PARTY AND 1. Konduru Sugunamma, W/o late K.Venkata Subbaiah @ Chinnodu, 36 years. Coolie. 2. Konduru Venkata Subbamma, D/o Late K.Venkata Subbaiah @ Chinnodu, age 25 years 3. Konduru Amani, D/o Late K.Venkata Subbaiah @ Chinnodu, age 24 years 4. Konduru Manisa, D/o Late K.Venkata Subbaiah @ Chinnodu, aged 15 years. Coolie, being Minor Rep by R1 age (RR1 to RR4 are R/o Mittapalli Village, Vempalli Mandal, Kadapa District.) ...RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS 5. K.Sudharshan Reddy, S/o K.Bala Gangi Reddy, Major, Owner of the Lorry Bearing No.AP-04V-8959, R/o D.N0.2/200-7-A, Balaji Nagar, Kadapa City, AP State. ...RESPONDENT/1®^ OPPOSITE PARTY LA. NO: 2 OF 2013fCMAMP. NO: 176 OF 2013^ Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased grant stay of operation of the order and decree in WC No.83/2008 on the file of the court of the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation and Asst.Commissioner of Labour, at Kadapa dated 20.02.2012 Counsel for the Appellant :SRI GUDI SRINIVASU Counsel for the Respondents : SRI L J VEERA REDDY The Court made the following: ^ % APHC010410892014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY JHE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE r [3460] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 368/2014 Between: ...APPELLANT The Reliance General Insurance Company AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Konduru Sugunamma And 4 Others and Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1.GUDI SRINIVASU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.L J VEERA REDDY The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.M.A.No.368 of 2014 JUDGMENT: The present appeal is filed against the order dated 20.02.2012 in W.C.No.83 of 2008 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa. 2. Facts leading to this appeal are as under: 3. The claim application was filed by wife and children of one K.Venkata Subbaiah (herein after referred to as ‘deceased’) stating that the deceased/K.Venkata Subbaiah @ Chinnodu was working as Driver cum Cleaner of lorry baring No.AP 04 8959 owned by O.P.No.1. On 12.01.2008 at about 8.00 p.m. he along with another Driver left from Bellary to Krishnapatnam of Nellore District with Iron ore load and after unloading the same at Krishnapatnam, on 13.01.2008 at about 7.00 p.m. while returning from Krishnapatnam, the deceased was driving the lorry and when they were reached 3 k.m. distance to Marripadu village of Nellore District on Nellore-Bombay High Way, suddenly the steering was not worked properly, due to which the deceased lost control oVer the lorry and dashed against a tree near 33 Badvel r 2 % Due to which, the deceased received grievous injuries and he died on the spot. On a report given by one Kishore, a case in Crime No.5 of 2008 under Section 304-A IPC registered by the Marripadu Police. As the deceased was working under O.P.No.1 and earning Rs.5,000/- per month, claim application was filed seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. O.P.No.1 filed written statement admitting the employer- employee relation. He clearly stated that after verification that the deceased was having valid driving licence, he entrusted the lorry to the deceased. He also stated that insurance policy was in force and he also paid the risk to cover the driver, however, he disputed the salary stating that he paid salary of Rs.4,500/- to the deceased. O.P.No.2/lnsurance Company filed its counter disputing the the ground that the deceased was only a cleaner but driver and the deceased has no valid driving licence and not drive the lorry. It was also disputed the employer- relationship, wages apart from stating that no premium paid to cover the risk of the driver. Mile stone. was 4. has 5. liability on not a competent to employee was / t 3 the basis of the pleadings, the Commissioner framed 6. On the following issues; 1 Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and the workmen met with accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting into death? 2. What was the age of the deceased at the time of the accident? 3. What were the wages paid to the deceased workman at the time of accident? 4. What is the amount of compensation payable? 5. Who are liable to pay the compensation? of evidence, the wife of the deceased was 7. In the course A.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 to support his examined as claim i.e. attested copy of F.I.R., attested copy of Inquest Report, of Post Mortem certificate, legal notice issued on attested copy behalf of the applicant dated 15.04.2008, Reply notice of the opposite party No.1 to the applicants dated 23.04.2008 and postal Acknowledgments. Ex.A.7 xerox copy of the driving licence of the deceased K.Venkata Subbaiah. On behalf of O.P.No.2/appellant, its Legal Manager was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B.1 attested copy of the policy was marked. consideration the 8. The Commissioner taking into documentary evidence held that O.P.No.2 has not adduced any 4 evidence to prove that the deceased/driver has no valid driving licence at the time of accident and by taking his age as 36 years and wages @ Rs.4,000/- as per G.O.Ms.No.90 dated 28.09.2007 awarded compensation of Rs.3,89,280/- besides stamp duty of Rs.780/- making the O.P.Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the amount. Hence, the present appeal. 9. Heard Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri L.J.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the Respondents. The principal ground contended by the learned counsel for 10. the Appellant is that the driver/cleaner does not have valid licence to drive the vehicle and no document was filed to establish the same. It is his contention that in the absence of any valid driving licence, no liability can be fastened on the insurance company. Learned counsel for the Respondents contended that since it is the stand of the insurance company that the deceased have driving licence, it is for them to establish this particular fact. 11. no Having heard the respective counsel, this Court has examined the original lower court record and as per the chief- affidavit of A.W.1, the Xerox copy of the driving licence of the deceased was filed along with chief affidavit and was sought to be 12. \ 5 marked as Ex.A.7. A Xerox copy of the driving licence of the deceased was also available in the record. As per the driving licence bearing No.55491945, it was issued by the transport authority at New Bombay, on 20.03.2004 to drive Heavy Motor Vehicles and was valid up to 21.03.2009. In the light of the driving licence of the deceased, being brought to the notice of the insurance company, it is obligatory on the part of the O.P.No.2/lnsurance Company to establish that O.P.No. 1/employer had engaged the driver with knowledge that he does not have valid driving license as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nirmala Kothari v. United Insurance Company Ltd.\ The Paragraph 12 thereof is extracted below; 13. "12. While hiring a driver the employer is expected to verify if the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the employer is not expected to further investigate into the authenticity of the licence unless there is cause to believe otherwise. If the employer finds the driver to be competent to drive the vehicle and has satisfied himself that the driver has a driving licence there would be no breach of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) and the insurance company would be liable under the policy. It would be 120^4^ (4) see 49 6 m unreasonable to place such a high onus on the insured to make enquiries with RTOs all over the country to ascertain the veracity of the driving licence. However, if the insurance company is able to prove that the owner/insured was aware or had notice that the licence was fake or invalid and still permitted the person to drive, company would no longer continue to be liable. the insurance 14. In the above Judgement, the Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pepsu RTC v. National Insurance Co.^ and National Insurance Co. vs. Swaran Slngh^ taking a similar view were also considered. 15. In this case, O.P.No.2/lnsurance Company should have summoned O.P.No.l/employer and established this fact and having failed to do so, it is not open to the Insurance Company to contend that they are not liable to pay any compensation. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal. Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. 17. As there is long delay of 13 years from the date of accident and considering the uncertain addresses of claimants, the State '2013(10) see 217 3 2004 (3)See 297 "V,.: 1 7 Legal Services Authority shall coordinate with the concerned departments and inform the claimants about the outcome of Appeal and further 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. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. SD/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTtON OFFICER To, 1. The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, at Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District (with records if any) 2. The Member Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, BSR Commercial Complex, Near AP Secretariat, Opp: Traffic Police Station, Malkapuram Village, Thullur Mandal, Guntur ' District 3. One CC to Sri. Gudi Srinivasu Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. L J Veera Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 5. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravathi at 6. THREE CD COPIES stu TAG Una,.. HIGH COURT DATED:21/02/2025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.368 of 2014 = m APR 2025 w ^ . Current Section DISMISSING THE CMA