APHC010599162017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 582/2017 Between: 1. BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., HYD, REP.BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, 3RD FLOOR, 6- 3-666/B/6, GOKUL TOWERS, PANJAGUTTA, HYDERABAD. ...APPELLANT AND 1. KHALILUR RAHAMAN HYD 6 OTHERS, S/O.MEHARULLA, AGED 62 YRS, OCC, COOLIE, R/O.31ST LINE, SARADA COLONY, GUNTUR 2. ANOWARA KHATUN, W/O.KHALILUR RAHAMAN, AGED 52 YRS, R/O.31ST LINE, SARADA COLONY, GUNTUR. 3. AJIJUR RAHAMAN, S/O.KHALILUR RAHAMAN, AGED 37 YRS, R/O.31ST LINE, SARADA COLONY, GUNTUR. 4. MANSUR RAHAMAN, S/O.KHALILUR RAHAMAN, AGED 33 YRS, R/O.31ST LINE, SARADA COLONY, GUNTUR. 5. SALEHA KHATUN, D/O.KHALILUR RAHAMAN, AGED 22 YRS, R/O.31ST LINE, SARADA COLONY, GUNTUR. 6. ICOMM TELE LIMITED, REP.BY ITS AUTHRISED SIGNATORY PLOT NO.31, KAMALAPURI SRINAGAR COLONY, BANJARAHILLS, HYDERABAD. 2 7. NALLABOTHULA RAVIKUMAR, S/O.GOPAIAH, R/O.ADIGOPAPALA VILLAGE, DURGI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal Under Section_____againstordersaggrieved by the orders passed in E.C.No.22 of 2015, dated 06.12.2016, and the Appellant received copy on 08.02.2017, by the Hon'ble Commissioner for Employee's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour Guntur, IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CMAMP 959 OF 2017 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 82 days in filing the appeal E.C.No. 22 of 2015, dated 06.12.2016, by the Hon'ble Commissioner for Employee;s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour Guntur and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2017(CMAMP 960 OF 2017 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 stay the execution of orders passed in E.C.No.22 of 2015, dated 06.12.2016, by the Hon'ble Commissioner for Employee's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour Guntur, pending the final disposal of the main appeal and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GUDI SRINIVASU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P NAGENDRA REDDY 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 582/2017 JUDGMENT: The present appeal arises out of order dated 08.02.2017, passed in E.C.No.22 of 2015 on the file of the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Guntur, determining compensation of Rs.8,81,560/- in favour of the claimants. 2. Parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: 4. This is a case of death. The deceased was Electrician by avocation and during the course of employment, while attending to electric cables work being laid down between Nidanampadu and Adigoppala, died on 12.08.2014. The accident was reported to jurisdictional police and crime No.154 of 2014 came to be registered. The deceased stated to be employed with opposite party-1, for whom the works were executed and supervised by opposite party-3 and was aged twenty-three years, and drawing wages of Rs.10,000/- per month.Therefore, his father, mother and siblings instituted claim under the provisions of Workmen’s 4 Compensation Act, 1923, seeking compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- against opposite parties 1 & 2. Opposite party-2 is insurance company,which has insured the workmen engaged by opposite part-1. 5. The opposite party-1 filed counter affidavit admitting to the averments made in the claim, including that the deceased was engaged with them and that he died during the course of employment as electrician while attending to the works, and that said works were being supervised by opposite party-3 for it.However, the quantum of claim was disputed to be excessive and exorbitant. 6. Opposite party-2 also filed counter affidavit,inter alia, taking stand that as there is no employer-employee relationship between deceased and opposite party-1, it cannot be fastened with liability, in particular,when the policy under coverage clearly excluded the risk of employees of subcontractors too. It is also disputed the claim on quantum as well. 7. The opposite party-3 also filed counter affidavit in line with the one filed by the opposite party-1 taking stand that all the workers, including those who are under his supervision, were duly insured with opposite party-2, at the instance of opposite party-1, therefore, liability if at all would be on opposite parties 1 & 2 alone 5 and therefore, sought for dismissal of claim against opposite party-3. In support of claim, first claimant was examined as AW-1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. For respondents, opposite party-1 got examined as RW-1 and got marked Ex.B1(1). Opposite party-2 neither examined anyone nor marked any documents. 8. Based on pleadings and evidence available on record, the Tribunal has framed following issues: 1) Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of the Act and he died due to personal injuriesreceived in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment? or not, under opposite party- 1. 2) Amount of compensation payable? to the applicants. 3) Who are liable to pay the compensation. 9. After evaluating the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal has come to conclusion that deceased was working with opposite party-1, therefore, qualified to be entitled for making claim under the provisions of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, besides that he died during the course of employment, inasmuch as he gotelectrocuted while attending to the duties, which finding was arrived based on Ex.A1-FIR copy, Ex.A2-Case diary part-II, Ex.A3-Inquest Report, Ex.A4-Postmortem report. Having come to aforesaid conclusion on applicability of Act and also the manner in which accident occurred, the Tribunal proceeded to determine 6 compensation. The minimum wages as applicable for semi-skilled workers came to be taken as the basis for the purpose of calculation of compensation, though the deceased was stated to be earning Rs. 10,000/- per month, which claim was not supported by any valid evidence. Accordingly, the Tribunal has assessed the total compensation as Rs. 8,81,560/- and directed the same to be paid by opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The plea of opposite party-2 is that as the deceased was working under sub-contractor,it did not have liability, as workmen under sub-contractor clearly excluded from the purview of coverage under the policy, came to be rejected by the Tribunal. Assailing the same, present appeal is preferred. 10. Heard Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P. Nagendar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that there is no employer-employee relationship between deceased and opposite party-1, therefore, as the policy has excluded persons, who are engaged under sub-contractors and other than sub-contractors, the Tribunal ought not to have fixed any liability on it. Except for the said ground, no other grounds have been canvassed. 7 12. On the other hand,learned counsel for the respondents while supporting the impugned order contended that when the opposite party-1itself has admitted in its pleadings and also in evidence that the deceased was working for it, in the absence of any contra evidence or material on record, contention raised by the appellant would be without any basis, therefore, the order of Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity. 13. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 14. The present appeal raises following substantial question of law: “Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there existed employer-employee relationship between the deceased and opposite party-1 and whether the finding rendered in the affirmative thus suffers from perversity.” 15. There is no dispute with respect to the deceased being electrocuted while discharging duties and that it was in the course of employment, and that he was an electrician by avocation.The only dispute is as to whether he was engaged on the rolls of opposite party-1or opposite party-3. Claimants have laid the claim on the premise that the deceased was engaged by opposite party-1 and that he died during the course of employment while executing the works for opposite party-1. To substantiate the said claim, first claimant spoke of the same, besides also marking 8 Exs.A1 to A5. The stand of claimants came to be clearly admitted by opposite party-1 in its counter affidavit and also in the oral evidence adduced through RW-1 and marked Ex.B1(1). The initial burden to prove that deceased was on the rolls of opposite party-1 lies on the claimants. The evidence of AW-1 and RW-1, besides the pleading in claim petition and counter affidavit of opposite party-1,discharges the initial burden that the deceased was working withopposite party-1. When both employer and employee are in tandem regarding the relationship between them, as the same is disputed by opposite party-2, it is for it to disprove the same by producing rebuttalevidence. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to demonstrate before this Court as Ex.A1-FIR refers to that deceased was working with opposite party-3 and not opposite party-1, the same itself is sufficient as arebuttal evidence to disprove the relationship between the deceased and opposite party-1. 16. This Court is afraid to accede to the said submission, merely based on statement recorded in FIR,when there is substantive evidenceadduced on behalf of the claimants, as confirmed and approved by the witness introduced by opposite party-1, such substantive evidence cannot be brushed aside and given due credit to the evidence based on FIR. The Tribunal, 9 while dealing with the said aspect, has clearly come to conclusion that as the relationship of parties has been agreed to by both employer and employee, the claimants have clearly discharged their burden of proof,therefore, the said contention has been duly rejected. 17. This Court does not find any infirmity with the said finding recorded by the Tribunal. As there are no other grounds urged with respect to quantum determined by the Tribunal, the order of Tribunal awarding compensation of Rs.8,81,560/- does warrant any inference. 18. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 05.08.2025 ANS 10 277 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 582/2017 Date: 05.08.2025 ANS