APHC010418762011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 303/2011 Between: The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Ananthapur ...APPELLANT AND V Anjanappa and 3 Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. A MALATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N ASWARTHA NARAYANA The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.303 of 2011 JUDGMENT: 1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Order dated 01.01.2011 in W.C.No.19 of 2009 passed by the Authority Under Employees Compensation Act and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Dharmavaram, Anantapuram District. 2. The insurance company is the Appellant. 3. The facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as follows:- The deceased V. Mahesh was employed by O.P.No.1 as a coolie. The deceased and the driver of the insured tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP 02 V 4106 and AP 02 V 4107 respectively went to Parigi Village for loading sand. When the deceased and others were standing on the same place for loading the sand, the offending vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner on the reverse side into the river and the trailer dashed against the deceased. As a result, the deceased suffered injuries and was shifted to a private hospital at Hindupur for treatment. While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries on 07.02.2008. A criminal case was registered vide Cr.No.13 of 2008 under Section 304 of IPC by the Parigi police against the driver of the said tractor and trailer. As the deceased was aged 18 years engaged by O.P.No.1 on monthly wage of Rs.4,500/-, the Claimants filed the application for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- from O.P.No.1 and the insurance company. 3 4. The O.P.No.1 i.e. the owner filed counter admitting that the deceased was working as a coolie under him and was being paid wages and the deceased died in the course of employment on 07.02.2008. It was further pleaded that the vehicle was insured to cover the risk of all the workers vide policy No.051001/31/07/02/00000083, which was valid from 19.04.2007 to 18.04.2008. The O.P.No.2 i.e. the insurance company filed their counter denying all the averments. 5. The Commissioner framed the following issues for consideration:- 1) Whether the deceased was a workman as per provisions of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 and he met with the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting into death? 2) What was the age of the deceased workman at the time of 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 compensation? 6. In support of the claim, the Claimant No.1 i.e. father of the deceased was examined as A.W.1 and one G. Somasekhar was examined as A.W.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. 7. A.W.1 deposed about their claim and the nature of the accident while A.W.2 deposed that he was also employed under O.P.No.1 and was with the deceased on the date of accident. 4 O.P.No.1 i.e. the owner did not lead any evidence while O.P.No.2 i.e. the insurance company examined one S. Sreeram Naik as a witness. The Commissioner held that the deceased was engaged by O.P.No.1 and had died in the course of employment. The liability of the insurance company was also upheld by the Commissioner. Further, as regards the claim for salary of Rs.4,500/- per month, it was observed by the Commissioner that as the amount was being disputed by the insurance company, the minimum wage fixed for a coolie in a tractor and trailer vide G.O.Ms.No.83, Labour, Employment, Training & Factories (Lab-II), Dated 22.11.2006 was adopted and a compensation of Rs.3,40,985/- was granted and monthly wage was fixed at Rs.3,012/- per month and total compensation of Rs.3,40,985/- was awarded. Hence, the present C.M.A is filed. 8. In the present C.M.A, the only issue that was raised by the counsel for the insurance company is regarding the liability of the insurance company under the policy. The Commissioner in his order had noted the objection that a premium of Rs.25/- was paid to cover the risk of driver and no coverage of coolies. The objection of the counsel for the Appellant was that the policy premium of Rs.25/- only to cover the risk of driver and not the coolie. 9. In the opinion of this Court, the liability cannot be said to be only for the driver only and the deceased cannot be said to be excluded from the said coverage. Additionally, the amended definition of “third party” under Section 145 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act under which all the persons other than the owner were treated as third parties. The Section 145 (i) reads as under: 5 “Section 145(i):“third party” includes the Government, the driver and any other co-worker on a transport vehicle.” 10. In view of the amended provision, there is no distinction between the driver and the coolie as all come under the definition of “third party” and the premium paid would ennure to the benefit of the coolie also. It is not in dispute that the policy also covers the liability of third parties and once the policy covers the liability of third parties, the deceased being a coolie and in view of the amended Section 145 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, would come within the definition of “third party” and would be entitled for compensation. 11. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal and the C.M.A is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The State Legal Services Authority shall ensure that the compensation is paid to the Claimant directly into his Aadhar linked bank account. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 04.02.2025 IS 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANOUES APPEAL NO.303 of 2011 Date: 04.02.2025 IS