IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE (Of A o PRESENT o THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJA^fe^ CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 391 OF 2011 Appeal under Section 30 of W.C Act, against the Order in WC.No.29 of 2006 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, at Kadapa, dated 9th June, 2010. Between: M/s National Insurance Company Limited, Anantapur., Rep.by its Branch Manager, Anantapur. ...Appellant/2"'^ Opposite Party AND 1. Chinna Obannagari Bala Obulu, S/o Obanna, aged about 54 years, R/o Palureu Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. 2. Chinna Obannagari Obulamma, W/o Bala Obulu, aged about 44 years, R/o Palureu Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. ...Respondents/Applicants 3. K.Sudheer, S/o K.Mabu, Owner of lorry No. AP 04 V-0247 R/o D.No.2/35, Nidijuvvi Village, Yerraguntia Mandal, Kadapa District. ...Respondent/1®* Opposite Party LA. NO: 2 OF 2011(CMAMP. NO: 51 OF- 2011) 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 decree and order in WC No.29/2006 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Dy.Commissioner of Labour at Kadapa dated 09.06.2010, pending disposal of the above CMA Counsel for the Appellant: SRI NARESH BYRAPANENI Counsel for the Respondents: SMT. B V APARNA LAKSHMI The Court made the following JUDGMENT: APHC010438172011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 391/2011 Between: M/s National Insurance Company Limited Anantapur. ...APPELLANT AND Chinna Obannagari Bala Obulu And 2 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1.NARESH BYRAPANENI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 .SMT. B.V.APARNA LAKSHMI The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICEE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.M.A.No.391 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The present appeal is filed against the order dated 09.06.2010 in W.C.No.29 of 2006 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa. Facts leading to this appeal are as under: 2. One Chinna Obannagari Ramesh (herein after referred to as ‘deceased’) was working as cleaner in the Lorry bearing » registration No.AP 04 V 0247 belonging to O.P.No.1 and used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month as wages and Rs.1,500/- as batta per month. On the instructions of O.P.No.1, the deceased was going to Chennai with a load on the insured vehicle as a cleaner. While so, the driver of the vehicle stopped the lorry in front of Radha Krishnam Raju Petrol Bunk, near Anantarajupeta of Kodur Mandal on Kadapa-Renigunta road at about 4.00 a.m. to have tea. There one lorry bearing Fiegistration No.AP 21 V 6990 dashed against the deceased workman and also others who sat ip the plastic chairs in front of the tea stall, as a result, the deceased received grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted 2 to Government Hospital, Koduru, subsequently he succumbed to A case in Cr.No.54 of 2005 was registered by the the injuries. Kodur Police on a complaint given by an eye witness one Kasthuri Harinath against the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 21 V6990. As the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family, the application for compensation was filed by the parents seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. It was stated that the vehicle was insured with O.P.No.2 vide policy No.501602/31/04/6300020050 valid from 29.11.2004 to 28.11.2005. 3. O.P.No.1/Employer called absent and remained ex parte. O.P.No.2/insurance company filed its counter disputing age, nature of accident and the liability on the ground that the deceased was not died while travelling, but was died due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the opposite lorry and that no premium was paid by O.P.No.1 to cover the risk of any other person other than the driver. 4. Considering the pleadings, the Commissioner framed following issues for consideration; 5. 3 1. Whether'the deceased was a workmen as per the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and he was died out of and in the course of hi employment under O.P.No. 1 resulting into his death? 2. What was the age of the deceased at the time of accident? 3. What was the wages paid to the deceased at the time of accident? 4. What is the quantum of compensation payable to the applicants? 5. Who are liable to pay compensation? 6. In the course of evidence, the claimant No.1 i.e. father of the deceased was examined as A.W.1, one Ramireddy Ashok Obula Reddy/eye witness to the incident was examined as A.W.2 and one K.Sudheer/Employer of the deceased was examined as A.W.3. Exs.A.1 to A.5 i.e. certified copy of the F.I.R. in Cr.No.54/2005 of Kodur P.S., certified copy of Inquest Report certified copy of Postmortem report, office copy of the legal notice dated 15.12.2005 and postal receipts four (4) in number were marked in their support. On behalf of opposite parties, one G.Venkateswarlu, Administrative Officer in National Insurance Co., Ltd., was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R.1 insurance policy was marked. 4 7. The Commissioner, taking into the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred in’ the course of employment and that the O.P.Nos.1 and 2 were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation by taking the monthly wages at the rate of Rs.2,419/- per month as per G.O.Ms.No.129 dated 29.03.2001 and age at 20 years and awarded compensation of Rs.2,70,928/-. Questioning the said order, the present appeal filed by the Insurance company. IS Heard Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the Appellant and Smt. Aparna Lakshmi, learned counsel for the Respondents. 8. 9. The findings as regards the age, income taken by the Commissioner and the manner of accident are not in dispute. The only issue urged was regarding liability to pay compensation to the cleaner in the absence of specific premium paid for him under the policy. The principal ground of challenge was that the deceased, being a cleaner and travelling in a Lorry, is not covered under the policy as no premium was paid to cover his liability, contention of the counsel for the Appellant that the policy does 10. It is the 5 not cover the cleaner-deceased travelling in the vehicle. The insurance policy was marked as Ex.R.1. t Having heard the counsel, this Court opines as follows; Section 145(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was amended vide the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 elaborating the term ‘third party’. As per the amended definition, ‘third party’ includes any co-worker on transport vehicle other than the owner and the driver. The amended Section 145 (1) reads as under; 145 (i) “third party" includes the Government, the driver and any other co-worker on a transport vehicle. This Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Savidi Anjaneyulu^ has held that the amendment to the definition of Section 145 (i) of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 is only clarificatory and therefore it is applicable retrospectivel y covering the risk of the driver or any other co-worker as third- 11. 12. party. In this case the deceased being a cleaner cannot be said to be a gratuitous passenger and comes within the amended definition of ‘third party’ under section 145 (i) of the Motor 13. iSCC Online AP 4840 6 Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 as it stands today and would be covered by Ex.R.1 Policy. 14. Therefore, this Court finds order passed by the Commissioner and Appeal is dismissed without costs. no reason to interfere with the the Civil Miscellaneous 15. As there is long delay of 20 years from the date of accident and considering the uncertain addresses Legal Services Authority shall coordinate departments and inform the claimants appeal and further ensure that the of claimants, the State with the concerned about the outcome of 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 Authority. Legal Services As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR 19' % //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, at Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District (with records) 2. The Member Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, BSR Commercial Complex, Near AP Secretariat, 0pp. Traffic Police Station, Malkapuram Village, Thullur Mandal, Guntur District 3. One CC to Sri. Naresh Byrapaneni Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Smt. B V Aparna Lakshmi Advocate [OPUC] 5. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. (for dispatch of Lower Court record) 6. Three CD Copies Stu vma HIGH COURT DATED:21/02/2025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.391 of 2011 5 2 2 APR 2025 C9, ■ Current decuon DISMISSING THE C.M.A WITHOUT COSTS