APHC010594082014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 67/2014 Between: 1. SMT. RAMALAKSHMAMMA, W/O. LATE LINGANNA, R/O. CHINNA JALAPURAM VILLAGE & POST, SINGANAMALA MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE MANAGER ANOTHER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, ANANTHAPUR. 2. SMT A RAMADEVI, W/O. A.GIDDAIAH, D.NO. 20/109-A, LALBAHADOOR STREET, OLD TOWN, ANANTHAPUR. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal Under Section_____against orders IA NO: 1 OF 2012(CMAMP 2551 OF 2012 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 1216 days in representing the above Appeal and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2012(CMAMP 2552 OF 2012 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the JS,J CMA No.67 of 2014 2 petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 29 days in filing the above CMA and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. N ASWARTHA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. O UDAYA KUMAR 2. GUDI SRINIVASU This Court made the following: JS,J CMA No.67 of 2014 3 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the appellant, aggrieved by the order dated 16.04.2009 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Anantapur, in W.C.No.21 of 2006, whereby and whereunder the claim application filed by the appellant seeking compensation for the death of her husband in an accident was dismissed. 2. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Commissioner. 3. The applicant is the wife of the deceased Linganna, who worked as Hamali under Opposite Party-II. On 06.04.2006, the deceased, along with others, was engaged in plucking orange fruits, and a lorry bearing No.AP 02T 6566 belonging to Opposite Party-II was used for transportation. When the lorry driver reversed the vehicle at high speed, it came into contact with an electric line. As a result, the deceased, who was sitting in the cabin, came into contact with a live electric wire and died instantaneously. JS,J CMA No.67 of 2014 4 4. The applicant states that her husband was 40 years old. He was working as a Hamali under Opposite Party-II and used to earn Rs. 5,000/- per month. She lost the earning member of the family and sought compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 5. Opposite Party-II was set ex parte. Opposite Party-I filed a counter, denying the allegations made in the claim petition and averring that the deceased did not work under Opposite Party-II. Furthermore, there is no document to prove that the deceased was a workman under Opposite Party-II and he travelled in the lorry unauthorizedly. The policy does not cover the risk of coolies and hamalis; therefore, the applicant is not entitled to compensation and seeks dismissal of the claim petition. 6. On behalf of the applicant, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. None were examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties. No documents were filed by either party. 7. The claim application was dismissed on the ground that the deceased was neither a driver nor a cleaner. The Commissioner held that the applicant failed to prove that the deceased was a workman under Opposite Party-II, and therefore, the Opposite Parties are not liable to pay compensation. JS,J CMA No.67 of 2014 5 8. Heard Sri N. Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant, and Sri Gudi Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent, and perused the record. 9. Opposite Party-II, i.e., owner of the lorry, had obtained a policy for three employees and paid a premium of Rs.75/-. The policy is in force as of the date of the accident. The Commissioner has come to the conclusion that the F.I.R. and the inquest or post-mortem certificate are not conclusive proof to establish the relationship of employer-employee and dismissed the case. 10. It is important to clarify that the F.I.R. is not an encyclopaedia but a preliminary document for initiation of criminal investigation. It does not serve as a detailed or comprehensive record of every aspect of a crime. The F.I.R. contains enough information to establish that a cognizable offence has taken place, but it does not need to include every detail or the complete background of the incident. 11. To establish her case, the applicant must prove that the accident occurred during the course of employment. Therefore, it is necessary to substantiate this fact with evidence. The applicant JS,J CMA No.67 of 2014 6 was examined as A.W.1. During her cross-examination, she deposed that her husband was travelling in the lorry as Hamali. The F.I.R. and the charge sheet reveal that the deceased attended the loading work and, on the instructions of Opposite Party-II, the deceased, along with others, went to pluck orange fruits and load the lorry, as evidenced by A.W.2 in his cross- examination. Opposite Party-II has neither contested the case nor adduced evidence to disprove that the deceased was not a workman and, there is no employer-employee relationship between Opposite Party-II and the deceased. 12. The Commissioner failed to consider the evidence of A.Ws.1 and 2 that the deceased was travelling as Hamali in the lorry. Although A.W.2 corroborates A.W.1's evidence to that effect, the Commissioner held that no material was filed to show the employee and employer relationship between the deceased and Opposite Party-II. Therefore, the finding of the Commissioner that the applicant failed to prove that there is a relationship of employee and employer between the deceased and Opposite Party-II is liable to be set aside. Therefore, Opposite Party-I cannot be exonerated from its liability. JS,J CMA No.67 of 2014 7 13. When a similar situation arose, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Madurai Vs. K. Murugan (C.M.A.(MD) No.978 of 2013 dated 15.02.2024), at para 20 held as under: “Further, the respondents side witness in his cross examination stated that the premium was collected as per Regulation of IMT No.17. IMT No.17 refers to personal accident covered to paid Drivers, Cleaners and Conductors. In this case, the petitioner was working as helper. As already discussed in the previous para that as per the Supreme Court Judgment, since there is no duties demarcated for the helpers and cleaners in this vehicle, the helper includes the cleaners and thereby, the appellant/second respondent is liable to pay the amount and there is no infirmity or perversity found in the order passed by the Tribunal. Thus, the substantial question of law (b) is answered.” 14. This Court, while considering the evidence of A.W.2, arrived at the findings that the deceased worked under Opposite Party-II, and there is an employee and employer relationship between the deceased and Opposite Party-II. As the applicant failed to produce the necessary documents to prove his earnings, this Court has fixed the monthly wages of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- for quantifying compensation. The age of the JS,J CMA No.67 of 2014 8 deceased, as per the evidence of A.W.1, as well as the inquest report and the post-mortem certificate, is 40 years. Adopting the same, the compensation is arrived at Rs.4,14,382/- (Rs.4,500/- x 50% x 184.17 = Rs.4,14,382/-) as per Section 4 (1) (a) r/w Section 4 and Schedule IV of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 and the applicant is entitled to the same. 15. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.04.2009 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Anantapur, in W.C. No.21 of 2006 is set aside. The W.C. No. 21 of 2006 is partly allowed, and compensation of Rs. 4,14,382/- (Rupees four lakhs fourteen thousand three hundred eighty two only) is awarded to the applicant. The Insurance Company shall make the payment along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the accident till the date of payment, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. JS,J CMA No.67 of 2014 9 The State Legal Services Authority shall ensure that the compensation is paid directly into the applicant's Aadhaar-linked bank account. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM 4th September, 2025 cbs JS,J CMA No.67 of 2014 10 HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM C.M.A.No.67 of 2014 4th September, 2025 cbs JS,J CMA No.67 of 2014 11