APHC010535562012 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: 765/2012 Between: Sri Chandrasekhar Reddy & Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND Sri Telugu Eranna ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. K SITA RAM Counsel for the Respondent: 1. BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKER The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.765 of 2012 JUDGMENT: 1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 against the Order dated 23.06.2011 in W.C.No.2 of 2001 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Adoni, Kurnool District. 2. The appellants herein are the O.P.Nos.1 & 2. 3. The facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as follows:- The Claimant/Respondent was employed by O.P.No.2, who had taken up sub-lease work at Sri Balaji Hot Mix Plant, the stone quarry located at Bychigeri Village on the Adoni-Yemmiganur Road. The job of the applicant was to load the quarry stone into the lorries. On 01.01.2000, at about 7.30 a.m., when the applicant and two other workers namely Narasimhulu and Bheemappa were loading the stone into a lorry in the presence of the owner of the lorry, the quarry was blasted without notice to the applicant and a stone of the size of the coconut came flying and hit the applicant near his right hand shoulder, causing serious injury. The injury necessitated insertion of a metal rod and the Claimant became permanently disabled from lifting any weights or doing heavy manual work with the right hand. It was also stated that a case in Cr.No.17 of 2000 was registered before the Taluq Police Station, Adoni on 12.07.2000. As the Claimant suffered disability in view of the accident, the application was filed seeking compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-. 4. The Respondents/O.P.Nos.1 & 2 filed their counter denying the claim for compensation. It was also stated that the Claimant had suppressed his deposition in C.C.No.27 of 2000, wherein he had stated that he was working 3 in the quarry along with Narasimhulu and Bheemappa. The deposition of the Claimant as P.W.1 in C.C.No.27 of 2000 before the Special Judicial Magistrate of II Class, Adoni and others depositions in the said case were filed along with the counter. 5. The Commissioner framed the following issues for consideration:- 1) Whether there was employee and employer relationship between the applicant and other O.P.No.1? 2) Whether there was an accident out of and in the course of employment of the applicant with O.P.No.1 resulting in his injury? 3) The extent of loss of earning capacity suffered by the applicant due to injuries he sustained in the alleged accident, if occurred? 4) The Extract age and wage of the applicant? 5) Whether the O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 are liable to pay compensation if payable? 6. On behalf of the Claimant, the Claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.5 i.e. Medical Certificate issued by Dr.B.Chandranna, Certified copy of deposition of Claimant, Deposition of witness Sararai Hanumanthu in C.C.No.27 of 2000, Deposition of witness Boya Narasimhulu in C.C.No.27 of 2000 and Deposition of witness U.Venkata Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Adoni respectively. 7. The Commissioner vide Order dated 26.06.2010 passed orders awarding compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. The said application was carried by way of an appeal before this Court in C.M.A.No.901 of 2001 and this Court vide Order dated 22.12.2010 allowed and remanded the case for fresh consideration. On remand, the Commissioner granted compensation of Rs.1,06,000/- with interest at 9% p.a from the date of accident till the date of deposit. Hence, the present C.M.A is filed. 4 8. Heard Sri K. Sita Ram, learned counsel for the Appellants and Sri Butta Vijaya Bhaskar, learned counsel for the Respondent. 9. The learned counsel for the Appellants contended that there is absolutely no proof to establish employee and employer relationship and the application was erroneously allowed by the Commissioner. It is his contention that the Claimant was working under third party and relied upon the deposition of the Claimant in the criminal case. The learned counsel for the Respondent sought to sustain the order of the Commissioner. 10. This Court having heard the Respective counsels, examined the deposition of the Claimant in C.C.No.27 of 2000. In the said case nothing is forthcoming regarding his admission of working under the owner of the lorry. In his deposition, he had stated that he was working as a Hamali and was loading stones into the lorry as on the date at the time of the incident. The other witnesses i.e. B. Narasimhulu and K. Bheemappa, who were examined in the said criminal case also stated that they were working as Hamalis loading stones in the lorry. As per the deposition of Sub-Inspector which was also marked in this case that the complaint was given by the Claimant and the crime was registered at the instance of the Claimant. The owner of the lorry was not examined. 11. Apart from the above, the presence of the Claimant along with other coolies at the scene of incident is not in dispute and the only question is whether they were employed by the Appellants or by the owner of the lorry. Though the Claimant contended that they were engaged by the Appellants, there is no documentary evidence to establish the same. The redeeming feature in the claim is that all the Hamalis examined in the criminal case spoke in unison and there is nothing much to disbelieve the said plea. 12. Though the plea taken by the appellants is also a possible view, the same may not be a ground to interfere with the findings of the commissioner considering the scope of the appeal under Section 30 of the Act. The 5 Hon’ble Supreme Court In Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav & Anr. Vs. New India Assurance Co., Ltd., & Anr1 held that if the view of the Commissioner is a possible view, the same cannot be interfered in an appeal under Section 30 of the Act. The paragraphs 23-26 are extracted below; “23. It has also been observed by this Court that the Commissioner is the last authority on facts involved in a case. In Golla Rajamma & Ors. v. Divisional Manager & Anr. (2- Judge Bench) it was observed that “under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to reappreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act.” 24. Keeping in view the said principles, the impugned judgement, ex-facie, appears to be in contravention thereto. 25. On merits too, we find that the conclusions arrived at by the Commissioner, were undoubtedly “a possible view”, therefore extinguishing the possibility of perversity in findings. 26. A Bench of two learned Judges observed in C. Manjamma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. “15. That being the position, the view taken by the Commissioner had been a possible view of the matter in the given set of facts and circumstances; and there was no reason for the High Court to interfere with the same, particularly when the case did not involve any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 30 of Employees Compensation Act, 1933.” 1 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 746 6 11. In the light of the above, no substantial question of law is made out by the appellant and therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of compensation passed by the Commissioner. 12. Accordingly, the C.M.A is dismissed. 13. Considering that the accident pertains to the year 2000 and appeal was pending before this Court since 2012, this Court in order to ensure the fruits of the compensation actually reach the Claimants, directs the State Legal Services Authority to see that the compensation is paid to the Claimants with interest at the earliest. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 04.02.2025 IS 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANOUES APPEAL NO.765 of 2012 Date: 04.02.2025 IS