APHC010453522010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 915/2010 Between: The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co., Ltd., ...APPELLANT AND Chakravarapu Appamma & 6 Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. NARESH BYRAPANENI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SRAVAN KUMAR MANNAVA 2. CH RAVINDRA BABU The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.915 of 2010 JUDGMENT: 1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Order dated 05.08.2010 in W.C.No.31 of 2007 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation Act and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Guntur, Guntur District. 2. The Insurance Company i.e. O.P.No.3 is the Appellant herein. 3. The facts leading to filing of the present Appeal are as follows:- One Ch. Krishnamraju (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) was working as the Driver under O.P.No.1 in his lorry bearing No. AP 07 TT 0499. In the course of employment, the deceased on the instructions of O.P.No.1 went to Bangalore in the insured lorry in the first week of January, 2007. On 13.01.2007, the deceased complained chest pain and immediately the co-driver had taken him to a private hospital at Bangalore for first aid and then brought him to Guntur on 14.01.2007 in the early hours. However, the deceased died due to the heart attack caused on account of stress and strain suffered in the course of driving the vehicle. 4. As the vehicle was insured by O.P.No.3-Insurance Company for the period from 14.01.2006 to 13.01.2007 and by O.P.No.2- Insurance Company for the period from 14.01.2007 and 13.01.2008, both the insurance companies were arrayed as party-respondents to the claim application. As the deceased was said to be aged about 40 years and earning monthly wages of Rs.4,000/- per month, the 3 compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- was sought by the wife, children and parents of the deceased as they were dependents on the income of the deceased at the time of incident. 5. The employer i.e. O.P.No.1 filed his counter admitting to the employment, incident of death and that the vehicle was insured with O.P.Nos.2 & 3 for the periods as specified in the claim application. 6. O.P.No.2-Insurance Company filed their counter admitting that they have issued insurance policy for the period from 14.01.2007 to 13.01.2008 and that O.P.No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation and O.P.No.3-Insurance Company alone is liable to pay compensation as the incident occurred on 13.01.2007 i.e. prior to the coming into force of the insurance policy issued by O.P.No.2. 7. O.P.No.3-Insurance Company i.e. the Appellant herein filed their counter disputing the incident of death on account of heart attack, as the deceased died on 14.01.2007, at that time, there was no insurance policy issued by O.P.No.3 and therefore O.P.No.3 is not liable to pay the compensation. 8. Considering the pleadings, the Commissioner framed the following issues for consideration:- 1) Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of the Act and he died due to personal injuries he received in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment? or not? 2) Amount of compensation payable to the applicant. 3) Who are liable to pay the compensation? 4 9. On behalf of the Claimants, the wife of the deceased was examined as A.W.1 apart from examining one Rajesh @ Raju as A.W.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 i.e. Copy of F.I.R, Copy of Inquest Report, Copy of P.M. Report, Cover note of policy of O.P.III and Cover note of policy of O.P.II respectively. 10. On behalf of O.P.No.3, one R. Adiseshu was examined as R.W.1 and one M.V. Chalapathi Rao was examined on behalf of O.P.No.2 as R.W.2 and Ex.B.1 i.e. Copy of Insurance Policy issued by O.P.III and Ex.B.2 i.e. Copy of Insurance Policy issued by O.P.II were marked. 11. After taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, the Commissioner held that the death of deceased occurred due Cardio Respiratory failure arising out of and in the course of employment under O.P.No.1. Taking into consideration the age mentioned in the P.M. Report as 40 years and the minimum wages prescribed to H.V. Driver in Public Motor Transport vide G.O.Ms.No.83/22-11-2006 restricted the monthly wages @ Rs.4,000/- in view of explanation in Section (4) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. On account of the wages at the rate of Rs.4,000/-, the compensation of Rs.3,69,077/- was awarded to the Claimants. Taking into consideration the insurance policies, the Commissioner held that O.P.Nos.2 & 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the present C.M.A is filed. 12. Heard Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company and Sri CH. Ravindra Babu and Sri Sravan Kumar Mannava, learned counsels appearing for the Respondents. 5 13. The contention of the counsel for the Appellant i.e. O.P.No.3- Insurance Company was that the insurance policy was for the period from 14.01.2006 to 13.01.2007 and as the deceased died on 14.01.2007, no liability can be fastened on the Appellant-Insurance Company and the Appellant should be exonerated from the liability. The counsel for the Appellant also contended that the death of the deceased cannot be said to be in the course of employment. 14. The counsel for the Respondents contended in support of the award on the ground that the incident occurred on 13.01.2007 and that day is relevant to determine the liability for payment of compensation and it is their further contention that since the deceased had suffered chest pain on 13.01.2007 i.e. the date on which the insurance policy of the Appellant i.e. O.P.No.3 was in vogue, the Appellant-Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from the liability. 15. Having heard the respective contentions, this Court is of the opinion that the nature of the job of the deceased could be visualized as a factor causing stress and strain and the resultant failure of Cardio Respiratory, which resulted in the death of the deceased. Therefore, as held by this Court in C.M.A.No.33 of 2024, wherein similar aspect was considered following the various Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the death of the deceased occurred on account of Cardio Respiratory failure should be treated as in the course of employment. 16. As regards the liability, the insurance policy of the Appellant/O.P.No.3 was in vogue for the period from 14.01.2006 to 13.01.2007 admittedly and as the incident occurred on 13.01.2007, 6 the Appellant-Insurance Company i.e. O.P.No.3 cannot be exonerated from its liability as the date of death is only being a consequence of Cardio Respiratory failure of the deceased on 13.01.2007. 17. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the C.M.A and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 18. As there is long time delay of 18 years from the date of incident and considering the uncertain addresses of Claimants, the State Legal Services Authority shall coordinate with the concerned Departments and ensure that the compensation is paid to the Claimants directly into their Aadhar linked bank account. 19. The Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the State Legal Services Authority. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 14.02.2025 IS 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.915 of 2010 Date: 14.02.2025 IS 8