APHC010573742023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.450 of 2024 Appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, aggrieved by the order dated 14-08-2023 passed in W.C(EC) No.2 of 2019 on the file of the Commissioner for the Employees Compensation-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour-ll, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. Between: United India Insurance Company Limited, Ramalaya Building, 1-7- 241/11, Sarojinidevi Road, Hyderabad-500003 through its Manager Motor TP Claims HUB, Divisional Office-1, R R Apparao Street, Vijayawada-1. ...APPELLANT/2'^° OPPOSITE PARTY AND 1. Konapalli Nagaraju, S/o. Arjuno, Aged 51 years, Occ: not known to R/o. Jammadevipeta Village, V.Madugula Mandal, appellant, Visakhapatnam District. 2. K Ramulamma, W/o. Nagaraju, Aged and Occ; not known to appellant, R/o. Jammadevipeta Village, V.Madugula Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. .. .RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS 3. Deepika Infra Tech P Ltd, Road No. 12, 8-2-868/C/D/5 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500034. 4. Project Administrator and Superintending Engineer, MGKLIS-3 Circle, Mahbubnagar, Telangana. 5. M/s Gamman India Ltd (GIL), Gamman House, Veersavarkar Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400 025. ...RESPONDENTS/OPPOSITE PARTIES lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151, Order 41 Rule 5(1) of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order to stay of all the further proceedings in the WC(EC) No.2/2019 on the file of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation-cum-Asst. Commissioner of Labour-11 at Visakhapatnam including that of withdrawal of an amount deposited as per the statutory demand, pending disposal of the above CMA. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V VEERABHADRA CHARY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SRI GOBBI MAHENDRANADH Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 to 5 : NONE APPEARED The Court made the following JUDGMENT : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.450 of 2024 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner For Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 and Commissioner of Labour, Circle-Il at Visakhapatnam (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Commissioner”) in W.C. (E.C) No.2 of 2019 dated 14.08.2023. The appellant is the insurer to the work assigned by 2. respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein to the respondent No.3. The respondent Nos.l and 2 are the applicants, who are parents of one Konapalli Laxmana (hereinafter called as “the deceased”). before the Commissioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter 3. referred to as they arrayed before the learned Commissioner. The case of the applicants, in the application before the 4. Tribunal, is that: By the date of incident, the deceased was covered i). under the policy obtained by the opposite party No.3 from opposite party No.2 for the work assigned to the opposite party No.4, which was in-turn entrusted to the opposite party No.l under a registered contract agreement. 2 ii). On 13.08.2016 at about 08.45 a.m., while the deceased attending lining of walls work in lift 3 pent house as labourer under opposite party No.l, the shutters were accidentally disjoined and the fell down from the height about 50 meters, resulted he same are received grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries in the midway to Area Hospital, Nagarkurnool. iii). Subsequently, Ex.A.3 F.I.R. was lodged under Cr.No.89 of 2016 of Gopalpet Police Station. Then the applicants approached the learned Commissioner for compensation. During the course of the proceedings the opposite party No.l filed a joint memo stating that they have settled the matter out of the Court for of Rs.5,67,000/-. The same was considered by the learned Commissioner concerned and delivered order, dated 17.09.2016 in W.C.No.27 of 2016(F)-I to treat the said settled amount as an Ex-gratia with instructions to the applicants to file a claim against the an amount an I 3 opposite party No.2/insurer for claiming compensation for the death of the deceased. iv). By the date of incident, the deceased was aged about 20 years, earning Rs.350/- per day and contributed the same for the welfare of the applicants. Since the death of the deceased was arising out of and during the course of employment, they claimed compensation amount of Rs.8,96,000/- with interest 18% per annum as well costs against the opposite party Nos.l to 4. 5. The opposite party Nos.l, 3 and 4 remained exparte before the learned Commissioner. 6. The opposite party No.2 filed counter before the learned Commissioner denying the averments in the application and pleaded as follows: The order dated 17.09.2016 passed by the learned Commissioner is invalid and once the claim was satisfied by any means, the applicants were forbidden from claiming for second time for the said incident; that 1 ',u % fife 4 the compensation claimed by the applicants i and thereby, prayed to dismiss the IS excessive present application. The learned Commissioner, settled the following i determination basing on the material: 7. issues for 1. Whether there exists any impediment i carrying justice by marking of Xerox copies in the conditions of non in -availability of originals in this case? 2.What is the amount of compensation to be paid and pay that compensation? and who are liable to S.Whether the amount paid by OPl to the dependents of the deceased can be considered as compensation? 8. In the course of applicant himself A. 15 were exhibited. On behalf of the Administrative Officer enquiry, on behalf of the applicants, the was examined as A.W.l and Exs.A.l to opposite party. No.2, its was examined as R.W.l and Ex.B.l policy was marked. 9. On the material, the learned Commissioner, to the conclusion that the having come amount of Rs.5,67,000/- paid by the opposite party No.l to the dependents of the deceased as an Ex- gratia, but not as compensation and this payment cannot, at m 5 any costs, exempts either opposite party No.l or opposite party No.2 from the present statutory liability, held the all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to deposit an amount of Rs.8,96,000/- towards compensation, with interest at 12% per annum from the date of application till the date of realization, within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order. It is against the said order, the present appeal is preferred 10. by the appellant/opposite party No.2/insurer. Heard Sri V.Veerabhadra Chaiy, learned counsel for the 11. appellant/opposite party No.2 and Sri G.Mahendranadh, learned eounsel for the respondent Nos.l and 2/applicants. Sri V.Veerabhadra Chary, learned counsel for the 12. appellant/opposite party No.2 vehemently contends that the learned Commissioner failed to consider the fact that the opposite party No.l already paid an amount of Rs.5,67,000/- to the applicants towards compensation for the death of deceased. but the same eannot be considered as an Ex-gratia; that there is no contractual liability on the insurance company to pay any 6 compensation to the applicants, since the policy obtained by the opposite parly No.3, but not the deceased the present appeal. opposite party No.l, under whom was attending the work, thereby, prays to consider 13. Per contra, Sri G.Mahendranadh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.l and 2/applicants immediately after the incident, the amount of Rs.5,67,000/- to the dependents of strenuously submits that opposite party No.l paid the deceased in not as a compensation. an various spells towards an Ex-gratia, but since the compensation is substituted by any Ex-gratia; that the a statutory right cannot be deceased was covered under valid insurance policy vide Ex.B.l and claim compensation from the the applicants can opposite party No.2/insurance company; that the learned Commissioner rightly appreciated material on record and awarded the compensation, thereby, prays present appeal. In support of the to dismiss the above contentions, he relied upon a decision of Karnataka High Court 7 in Nusrat Jahan v. The Managing Director^ as well decision of this Court in APSRTC v. Bhupender Singh Alak^. Now, the points that arises for determination are : 14. i). Whether the learned Commissioner erred ordering compensation against the opposite party No.2/insurance company, when the opposite party No.l said to be paid certain amount to the applicants in various spells immediately after the incident? ii).Whether the opposite party No.2/insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the applicants to indemnify the contract under Ex.B.l policy? and iii) To what relieP 15. POINT NO.l: It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased during the course of employment under opposite party No.l. It is also not in dispute even as per the case of the applicants immediately after the incident, the opposite party No.l paid an amount of Rs.5,67,000/- to the dependents of the deceased in three installments as out of court settlement. 1 MFA No.200839/2017 (WC) decided on 25.06.2020 2 2004 (2) ALD 405 !'■ 8 16. Firstly, this Court deems it appropriate to first address the maintainability of the present Civil Miscellaneous partieularly in the absence of any plea raising a substantial question of law. Upon a thorough examination of the material placed Appeal, entire on record, it is evident that the appellant/insurer has not speeifically pleaded any substantial question of law warranting the entertainment of this appeal. As noted above, it is not the case of the appellant that the deceased did not die 17. as a result of an untoward ineident occurring during the course of employment. Therefore Court finds no hesitation in holding that the appeal is devoid of any substantial question of law and, maintainable. , this eonsequently, is not 18. However, it is the foremost contention of the appellant that the insurance company is not liable to compensation to the applicants for the death of the deceased during the course of employment, since the opposite party No.l already paid compensation, but not as an Ex-gratia. pay any an amount of Rs. 5,67,000/- towards 9 19. Now it is apposite to refer the certain observations made this Court in Bhupender Singh Alak case (referred to supra), wherein at paragraph No. 17 categorically held that: “It is clear that ex-gratia or compensation paid by the Corporation otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Act will not fall under "compensation" within the meaning of the Act so as to attract the benefits specified under Section 13 of the Act. The very plea and also the nature of the evidence let in by the respective parties from the material available on record shows that these payments were made directly and not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and certain payments are said to be ex-gratia payments and certain payments are said to be the payments by way of workmen's compensation. The mere fact that the term or expression "compensation" or "workman compensation" is applied, is not sufficient by itself to say that the ingredients of Section 13 or the benefits under Section 13 of the Act are automatically attracted. The payments made directly by the Corporation without following the procedure specified under the Act cannot be styled to be workmen's compensation 10 so as to attract the benefits conferred under Section 13 of the Act, 20. The same view also expressed by the Karnataka High Court in Nusrat Jahan case (referred to supra), by referring the above decision of this Court, wherein categorically held that “Exgratia compensation paid by employer otherwise than in accordance with provisions of Act will ‘compensation’ within the meaning of the Act so as to attract specified under Section 13.” not fall under 21. Admittedly, the amount said to be paid by the opposite party No.l to the dependents of the deceased is not deposited with the learned Commissioner and paid it directly in various spells, thereby, which cannot be considered as compensation under Section 8 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. In view of the above settled legal position, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the learned Commissioner after thorough appreciation of the provisions under Workmen’s Compensation Act rightly came to the conclusion that the amount said to be paid by the opposite party No.l to the dependents of the deceased as an Ex- 11 gratia, but not considered as compensation, which requires no interference of this Court. This point is answered accordingly in favour of respondent Nos.l and 2/applicants and against the opposite party No.2/insurer. 22. POINT N0.2; It is not in dispute that Opposite Party No.3 had obtained an insurance policy from Opposite Party No.2 in respect of the work that was entrusted to Opposite Party No.4, who in turn subcontracted the same to Opposite Party No.l under a registered contract agreement. The deceased was employed under Opposite Party No.l at the time of the incident. It is also an admitted fact that, as on the date of the incident, the policy marked as Ex.B.l, issued in respect of the said work, was in force and covered the risk in question. 23. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurer contends that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants, as the policy was obtained by Opposite Party No.3 and not by Opposite Party No.l, under whom the deceased was working at the time of the incident. # ■ a 12 24. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which applies notwithstanding any agreement or contract between the prineipal employer and the contractor regarding liability for payment of compensation. Further, Section 12(2) of the Act confers a right on the prineipal employer, who is made liable to pay compensation under the Aet, to seek indemnification from the contractor. In such circumstances, both the principal employer and the contractor are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. In view of the above settled law, the opposite party Nos.l, 3 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay eompensation to the applications. Furthermore, the learned Commissioner by referring the various pronouncements of HonTole Supreme Court as well High Courts, rightly held that the liability is fastened to the insurer duly indemnifying the employer under Employees Compensation Act, which requires no interference of this Court. Thereby, this Court has no reasons to upset the well-reasoned findings arrived by the learned Commissioner regarding liability 25. 13 of the insurer to pay the compensation to the applicants for the death of the deceased during the course of employment. Thus, this point is answered accordingly in favour of the applicants and against the appellant/insurer. POINT N0.3; 26. It is also a contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer that the learned Commissioner erred in calculating the compensation entitled by the applicants by fixing the wagers under ceiling in the Employees Compensation Act. Even the applications claimed that by the date of incident, the deceased was earning Rs.9,100/- per month, since the wages ceiling was limited to Rs.8,000/- per month as per the notification of Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, vide S.0.1258(E) dated 31.05.2010, under Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923, the learned Commissioner rightly calculated the compensation entitled by the applicants by considering the age of the deceased, which does not reflect any error made by the learned Commissioner in deciding the quantum of compensation entitled by the applicants. \ 14 In view of the above diseussion in point Nos.l to 3, this Court is of the eonsidered opinion that no valid grounds urged by the appellant/insurer to meddle with the findings arrived by the learned Commissioner in all aspects, as there is no need to disturb the well-articulated order passed by the Tribunal, the appeal preferred by the appellant is liable for dismissal. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the order, dated 14.08.2023 in W.C. (E.C) No.2 of 2019 passed by the learned Commissioner For 27 28. Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle-II at Visakhapatnam. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. SD/- E.KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR // ^ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Commissioner for the Employees Compensation-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour-ll, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri V Veerabhadra Chary, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Gobbi Mahendranadh, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. (to dispatch the trial court records) 5. Two CD Copies TK TAC HIGH COURT DATED:10/07/2025 JUDGMENT CMA No.450 of 2024 1 1 SEP 2025 )^) ysQiiTent SectiocxV"^ o DISMISSING THE CMA