1 APHC010533712012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] FRIDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No: 567/2012 Between: R. Ravanamma And Another and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND The New India Assurance Company Limited Vsp And Another and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. CHALLA SIVASANKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NARESH BYRAPANENI The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 567 of 2012 JUDGMENT: 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 ( for short ‘ the Act, 1923’), questioning the Order dated 28.07.2008 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa, in W.C.No.13 of 2006. 2. The Appellants are the Claimants/Applicants. The Applicant No.1 is the Wife and Applicant No.2 is the minor son of the deceased—R. Baba Fakruddin @ Babu, Lorry Driver, who died in the accident on 03.02.2006. As per the claim, the deceased was working as Cleaner under Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1 in the lorry bearing No. AP 04 T 1070. On 03.02.2006, the Lorry was loaded with sugarcane to go to Podalakur, Nellore District, from Gontuvaripalli Village, as per the instructions of the Opposite Party No.1, and in the enroute, when the lorry reached Gontuvaripalli Village Elementary School at about 08.00 pm, the Lorry driver, without noticing the L.T. Power Line, had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and thereby LT Power Line came in contact with the Lorry. The Deceased, who was sitting on the door side cabin of the vehicle was electrified and fell down from the Lorry, received bleeding injuries and died on the spot. A Crime No.3 3 of 2006 was registered in Kalasapadu Police Station, Kadapa District, on 04.02.2006 under Section 304-A IPC. As the Deceased was aged 27 years and earning Rs.5000/- per month, the application for compensation was filed by the Applicants. It was also pleaded that the Lorry was insured with Respondent No.1 herein/Insurance Company vide Policy No.620301/31/05/12451, which was valid from 10.10.2005 to 09.10.2006. 3. The Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1 did not contest the case and the insurance company, which was arrayed as Opposite Party No.2, filed its Counter Affidavit disputing the same. The Commissioner framed five charges, which read as follows: 1. Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, and he met with the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment? 2. What is the age of the deceased at the time of accident? 3. What were the wages paid to the Deceased at the time of the accident ? 4. What is the Quantum of compensation payable to the applicants? 5. Who are liable to pay the compensation to the Applicants? 4. In support of the claim, the wife of the Deceased examined herself as AW.1 and marked Exs. A.1 to A.7. The Commissioner had upheld the claim of the Claimants vis a vis the employee and employer relationship between the 4 parties, the accident and the death of the deceased in the accident. However, as regards the income claimed by the deceased at Rs.5000/- per month was not accepted and minimum wages was fixed as per G.O.Ms.No.81, dated 29.03.2021 as applicable to the Lorry cleaner at Rs.2763.75 ps per month. Eventually, the compensation of Rs.2,87,402/- was awarded by the Commissioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the Appellants. 6. The learned counsel for the Appellant contended that fixation of wages at the rate of Rs.2763.75 per month was too low and the wages at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month should have been accepted as sought by the Claimants. 7. Though there is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the Appellants that the adoption of minimum wages towards Lorry cleaner appears to be on the lower side, but in the absence of any evidence, at least from the owner of the vehicle either by way of Counter Affidavit or by way of Deposition, the wages adopted by the Commissioner cannot be faulted. Therefore, in the absence of the evidence, this Court under Section 30 of the Act, 1923, cannot interfere with the findings arrived at by the Commissioner. Therefore, the Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5 8. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The amounts, if any, to the credit of the W.C.No.13 of 2006 can be withdrawn by the Claimants. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 31.01.2025 eha 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CMA No. 567 of 2012 Date: 31.01.2025 eha U