APHC010458372014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 432/2014 Between: The National Insurance Co Ltd ...APPELLANT AND Piridi Vijaya Two Other and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. MUTEVI MURALIKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N SRIHARI The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.432 of 2014 JUDGMENT: 1. The present C.M.A is filed under Section 30 of Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 questioning the Order dated 28.04.2012 passed in W.C.No.66 of 2007 by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Eluru and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Eluru in awarding compensation of Rs.4,31,421/-. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as follows:- The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the Claimants. Claimant No.1 is the wife and Claimant No.2 is the daughter of the deceased Piridi Sankara Rao. The deceased Sankara Rao was working as driver of the vehicle bearing No. AP 37 W 2124 owned by one Y. Nageswara Rao @ Nagapandu i.e. O.P.No.1. The said vehicle was insured with the appellant vide policy bearing No.550801/31/06/6300000043, dated 15.04.2007. 3. On 18.01.2007, the deceased along with the cleaner by name M. Rambabu started from Tadepalligudem on the lorry to Kolkata and after unloading at Kolkata, the deceased along with the cleaner started with bran load to Gundugolanu. While returning, the lorry reached Palavalasapeta at about 2.00 a.m. on 24.1.2007 and at that place, the lorry collided against a culvert situated by the side of the road. As a result, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained severe injuries on the head and other vital parts of the body. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Tekkali and later to K.G.H. Visakhapatnam, where he died while undergoing treatment on 25.01.2007. A crime was registered by the S.H.O, Nandigam P.S., Srikakulam District as Cr.No.9 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC. 3 4. As the deceased was being paid monthly salary of Rs.3,500/- per month and Rs.1,000/- per month as batta, the Claimants filed the application seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the owner of the vehicle and its insurer. On issuance of notice by the Commissioner, O.P.No.1 i.e. owner of the vehicle remained absent and O.P.No.2 i.e. insurance company filed their formatted counter denying every facet of the claim. In the counter, the contents of F.I.R and Charge Sheet were relied on to contend that the vehicle was being driven by the cleaner M. Rambabu, while the deceased was sleeping at the time of accident. As the deceased could not have entrusted the vehicle to the cleaner and being at fault is not entitled for compensation. 5. In the course of trial, the wife of the deceased was examined as A.W.1 and got marked the following documents:- Ex.A.1: Notarised copy of FIR Ex.A.2: Notarised copy of P.M. Report Ex.A.3: Notarized copy of Inquest Report Ex.A.4: Driving licence in original The insurance company examined its Assistant Manager as R.W.1 and the Head Constable of Nandigam Police Station, Srikakulam District as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.B.1 Copy of Insurance policy and Ex.B.2 Certified copy of Charge Sheet. 6. The Commissioner after considering the evidence and the rival submissions granted compensation of Rs.4,31,421/- vide Order dated 28.04.2012. Hence, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. 7. Heard Sri M. Murali Krishna, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri N. Sri Hari, learned counsel for the Respondents. 4 8. The counsel for the Appellant fairly submitted that there is no dispute with regard to insurance and the driving license of the deceased driver. The only ground which was urged by the counsel for the Appellant was that the vehicle was being driven by the cleaner, who did not have driving license and therefore the insurance company should be exonerated from the liability arising out of the accident. 9. The counsel for the Respondents contended that the plea that the cleaner was driving the vehicle was purely based on the FIR and consequential charge sheet of the police of the Nandigam Police Station. It was also contended that the cleaner was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tekkali in C.C.No.97 of 2007 on 22.08.2008 as there was no conclusive evidence that the cleaner was driving the vehicle. Though copy of the Judgment was not marked, it is referred in the deposition of the Head Constable (R.W.2) and the impugned order. 10. As the cleaner was acquitted, the core defence of the insurance company stands obliterated and this ground is no longer available. Apart from that, there is no specific stand taken by the insurance company that the cleaner, who was allegedly driving the vehicle did not have driving license to drive the vehicle. The Commissioner having analyzed the facts and came to a conclusion that the Claimants are entitled for compensation, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court considering the scope of Section 30 of Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. 11. As no substantial questions of law are forthcoming calling for interference, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 28.01.2025 IS 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.432 of 2014 Date: 28.01.2025 IS