APHC010592192014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 132/2014 Between: The United India Insurance Company Ltd., ...APPELLANT AND Puttam Sujatha 5 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. NARESH BYRAPANENI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P PRABHAKAR RAO The Court made the following: 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.M.A. No.132 of 2014 JUDGMENT: The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Order dated 20.10.2011 in W.C.No.5 of 2009 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation Act and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada. 2. The Insurance Company i.e. O.P.No.2 is the Appellant herein. 3. The facts leading to filing of the present Appeal are as follows:- One Puttam Anjaneyulu (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) was working as Driver under O.P.No.1 in his lorry bearing No. AP 16 TW 0200. On 05.08.2007 at about 3.00 p.m., the deceased Anjaneyulu along with cleaner-Sk.Khadar proceeded on the said lorry with cement load to Tallarevu and reached Tallarevu on 06.08.2007 and after unloading the cement bags at Corangi and Tallarevu, while returning, when the lorry reached near Petrol Bunk, bye pass road, Tallarevu, the deceased stopped the lorry by the left side road margin due to heart pain. The cleaner brough one R.M.P. Doctor, who after examination declared the deceased as dead. 3 However, the deceased died due to the heart attack caused on account of stress and strain suffered in the course of driving the vehicle. 4. The vehicle was insured with O.P.No.2 vide policy No.150704/31/06/01/00001060 valid up to 15.01.2008. As the deceased was said to be aged about 30 years and earning monthly wages of Rs.4,000/- per month, the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- was sought by the wife, children and parents of the deceased as they were dependents on the income of the deceased at the time of incident. 5. The O.P.No.1/employer of the vehicle was called absent and was set ex parte. 6. O.P.No.2-Insurance Company filed its counter disputing the incident by stating that the death had not arisen due to stress and stain out of and in the course of his employment and that there is no nexus between the death and nature of the duty of the deceased and as such Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. 7. Considering the pleadings, the Commissioner framed the following issues for consideration:- 4 1) Whether the deceased Puttam Anjaneyulu was a workman u/s.2(1) (n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act at the time of his death?, whether the deceased had died as a result of accident arising out of and in the course of employment? 2) If so, what is the age and wage of the deceased at the time of his death? 3) What is the amount of compensation?. 4) Who are liable to pay compensation to the dependants of the deceased? 8. On behalf of the Claimants, the wife of the deceased was examined as A.W.1 and O.P.No.1/owner of the lorry was examined as A.W.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 i.e. Copy of F.I.R, Copy of Inquest Report, Copy of P.M. Report, Xerox copy of driving licence of the deceased, Xerox copy of Insurance policy and Xerox copy of C.Book. No oral or documentary evidence was let in by the Opposite Parties. 9. After taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, the Commissioner held that the death of the deceased occurred due to Heart Attack arising out of and in the course of employment under O.P.No.1. Taking into consideration the age as 30 years and the minimum wages prescribed to H.V. Driver in Public Motor Transport vide G.O.Ms.No.83 dated 22.11.2006 restricted the monthly wages @ Rs.4,000/- in view of explanation in Section (4) of 5 the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. On account of the wages at the rate of Rs.4,000/-, the compensation of Rs.4,15,960/- apart from costs of Rs.832/- were awarded to the Claimants making the O.P.Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the present Appeals is filed. 10. Heard Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company and Sri P.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsels appearing for the Respondents. 11. The only contention of the counsel for the Appellant is that the death of the deceased cannot be said to be in the course of employment and no liability can be fastened on the Appellant- Insurance Company and the Appellant should be exonerated from the liability. 12. The counsel for the Respondents contended in support of the award and contended that since the deceased had suffered chest pain on 06.08.2007 in the course of employment due to stress caused by the very nature of work and the Appellant-Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from the liability. 13. Having heard the respective contentions, this Court is of the opinion that the nature of the job of the deceased could be visualized 6 as a factor causing stress and strain and the cause of Heart Attack, which resulted in the death of the deceased. Therefore, as held by this Court in C.M.A.No.33 of 2024, wherein similar aspect of death of a driver due to Heart Attack was considered and following the various Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the death on account of Heart Attack should be treated as in the course of employment. 14. In this case also, the continuous driving by the deceased was reiterated by A.W.2 A.Venkateswara Rao i.e. O.P.No.1/Employer. In the light of the deposition of the employer himself regarding continuous driving by the deceased, this Court does not have any doubt that the same is the contributory factor for the death of the deceased due to Heart Attack. The appellant also did not lead any evidence to establish any pre-existing precarious health condition of the deceased to support their plea that the nature of job of the deceased was not the principal contributory factor to the death of the deceased. 15. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the Appeal and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. As there is long delay from the date of incident and considering the uncertain addresses of Claimants, the State Legal Services Authority shall coordinate with the concerned Departments and 7 ensure that the compensation is paid to the Claimants directly into their Aadhar linked bank account. The Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the State Legal Services Authority. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 20.02.2025 KLP