APHC010020652014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 420/2014 Between: The Orietnal Insurance Company Limited ...APPELLANT AND C Venkata Subbaiah Anr and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. A JAYANTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. CHALLA SIVASANKAR The Court made the following: 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.M.A.No.420 of 2014 JUDGMENT: The present appeal is filed against the order dated 28.05.2008 in W.C.No.50 of 2004 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa. 2. Facts leading to this appeal are as under: The claimant filed W.C.No.50 of 2004 stating that he was working as a cleaner under O.P.No.1 in a lorry bearing No. AP 26 T 2565. The vehicle was insured with O.P.No.2 vide Policy No.455103 which was valid from 25.04.2003 to 24.04.2004. On 17.08.2003, as per the instructions of O.P.No.1, the claimant went in the lorry with a load of Ground Nut Cake from Proddatur to Akuveedu of Godavari District and unloaded at Akuveedu and picked up Banana load on 19.08.2003 at Akuveedu to Madras. On 20.08.2003 at about 5.30 a.m., near Manbole R.T.C. Bus stand, the Lorry met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. In the said accident, the claimant suffered grievous injuries and fracture to his left leg 3 knee and after first aid at Private Hospital at Nellore, shifted to Government Hospital at Kadapa. 3. In the course of treatment, the claimant said to have incurred heavy expenses and was permanently disabled due to the injury caused in the accident. A case in Cr.No.79 of 2003 was registered under Section 337 of IPC by the Manbole Police Station. As the claimant was aged 20 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month apart from Rs.40/- per day as batta, the application was filed seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. 4. O.P.No.1/Employer remained ex parte. O.P.No.2/the insurance company filed its counter disputing the claim, the nature of injuries and the liability to pay compensation. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the Commissioner framed following issues: “1. Whether the applicant is a workman as per the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and he met with accident and received grievous fracture injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment? 2. What is the age of the applicant at the time of accident? 3. What are the wages paid to the applicant at the time of accident? 4 4. What is the quantum of compensation payable to the applicant ? 5. Who are liable to pay the compensation to the applicant and to what relief? 6. In the course of evidence, the claimant himself was examined as A.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.8 in support of his claim i.e. C.C. of FIR in Cr.No.79/2003 of Manbole Police Station, Office copy of legal notice dated 01.12.2003 issued to opposite parties 1 and 2, postal acknowledgment of O.P.No.2, returned registered letter with acknowledgement due address with O.P.No.1, attested copy of case record of the applicant, disability certificate issued by Dr.G.Venkata Subbaiah, dated 14.04.2005, X-ray of C.Venkatasubbaiah dated 14.04.2005 and C.C. of case sheet. Doctor by name G.Venkata Subbaiah was examined as A.W.2 to speak about the disability suffered by the claimant. O.P.No.1/Owner of the vehicle was examined as A.W.3. On behalf of the Respondents, Branch Manager of O.P.No.2 was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.3 i.e. Copy of the policy, charge sheet and investigation report were marked. 7. The Commissioner, taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the claimant 5 had suffered injuries in the accident and had sustained permanent disability @ 35%. The Commissioner, taking the age of the claimant as 30 years and minimum wages as Rs.2,237.25/, awarded compensation of Rs.97,714/-. Hence, the present appeal is filed seeking enhancement of compensation. 8. Heard Smt. A.Jayanthi, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri. Challa Sivasankar, learned counsel for the Respondents. 9. The findings as regards the age, income taken by the Commissioner and the manner of accident are not in dispute. Learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the vehicle was driven by the claimant at the time of the accident and even assuming that the vehicle was being driven by the claimant, there is no policy covering the liability of the cleaner. The counsel for the Respondent supported the order of Commissioner and contended that the plea of the appellant is purely factual and cannot be interfered in an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s’ Compensation Act. 10. Having heard the respective counsel, this Court opines as under: 6 The contention of the Appellant that claimant is driving the vehicle on the date of accident cannot be sustained since in the charge sheet, which marked as Ex.B.2, O.P.No.1 along with the driver alone were made accused in the criminal case. As per the charge sheet, driver K.Krishna Reddy was said to be driving the vehicle. Therefore, the contention that the claimant was driving the vehicle at the time of accident cannot stand for scrutiny. Further, O.P.No.1 in his deposition as A.W.3 had also reiterated the fact that as on the date of accident, K.Krishna Reddy was driving the vehicle. Therefore, this submission does not have any merit. 11. The other ground of challenge was that the claimant, being a cleaner, is not covered under the policy as no premium was paid to cover his liability. It is the contention of the counsel for the Appellant that the policy does not cover the risk of the cleaner travelling in the vehicle. The insurance policy was marked as Ex.B.1. 12. Having heard the counsel, this Court opines as follows: Section 145(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was amended vide the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 elaborating the term ‘third party’. As per the amended definition, ‘third party’ 7 includes any co-worker on transport vehicle other than the owner and the driver. The amended Section 145 (1) reads as under: 145 (i) “third party” includes the Government, the driver and any other co-worker on a transport vehicle. 13. This Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Savidi Anjaneyulu1 has held that the amendment to the definition of Section 145 (i) of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 is only clarificatory and therefore it is applicable retrospectively covering the risk of the driver or any other co-worker as third- party. 14. In this case, the claimant being a cleaner cannot be said to be a gratuitous passenger and comes within the amended definition of ‘third party’ under section 145(i) of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 as it stands today and would be covered by Ex.R.1 Policy. 15. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed without costs. 1SCC OnLine AP 4840 8 16. As there is long delay of 22 years from the date of accident and considering the uncertain addresses of claimants, the State Legal Services Authority shall coordinate with the concerned departments and inform the claimants about the outcome of appeal and further ensure that the compensation is paid to the claimants directly into their Aadhar linked Bank Account. Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the State Legal Services Authority. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. ___________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 25.02.2025 KLP