APHC010612332013 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: 602/2013 Between: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY,, REP. BY ITS SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, R.R.APPARAO STREET, VIJAYAWADA, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, 7- 241/10, 1ST FLOOR, RAMALAYA BUILDING, S.D.ROAD, SECUNDERABAD. ...APPELLANT AND 1. AMBATI VIJAYALAKSHMI ANOTHER, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D.NO. 61-8/10-1/2A, KRISHNA LANKA, VIJAYAWADA. 2. M/S SOUTHERN TRAVELS PVT LTD, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI-110005 ...RESPONDENT(S) Appeal Under Section_____against orderst o set aside the order in WC No. 90/2006, dt. 18-12-2012 passed by the Learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada by allowing the appeal and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2013(CMAMP 808 OF 2013 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 60 days in filing the above appeal and pass JS,J CMA No.602 of 2013 2 IA NO: 2 OF 2013(CMAMP 850 OF 2013 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 grant stay of all further proceedings against the award dated 18.12.2012 in WC No.90/2006 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada IA NO: 3 OF 2013(CMAMP 1126 OF 2013 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 vacate the interim order dated 24.04.2013 in CMAMP.No.850/2013 in CMA(SR).No.16282/2013 Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G L NAGESWAR RAO The Court made the following: JS,J CMA No.602 of 2013 3 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, ‘the WC Act’), is filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party-II aggrieved by the order, dated 18.12.2012, passed in W.C.No.90 of 2006 by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada (for short, ‘the Commissioner’). The Commissioner allowed the Workmen Compensation Case and directed both the opposite parties jointly and severally to deposit an amount of Rs.3,46,231/-, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, against the original claim of Rs.5,00,000/-. 2. Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party-II, and Sri G.L. Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1/applicant, and perused the material available on record. 3. For convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Commissioner. JS,J CMA No.602 of 2013 4 4. The applicant is the wife of the deceased lorry driver who worked under Opposite Party-I. The lorry was owned by Opposite Party-I and insured with Opposite Party-II under policy No. 221503/31/05/01/000004321. 5. On 02.12.2005, the deceased, along with co-driver M. Nagaraju, started from Delhi to Hyderabad in a lorry loaded with rice. During the transit, the deceased and the co-driver exchanged seats at Jalna crossroads, and the deceased slept behind the driver’s seat. The co-driver stopped the lorry at Yedsi to attend to nature’s calls and found the deceased dead. The doctor who examined the deceased confirmed the death. The Police, Usmanabad Police Station, registered Crime No.340 of 2005 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. 6. In the post-mortem report, it was observed that the deceased died due to strain, stress, and continuous driving. The applicant also stated that the deceased was 45 years old and earned Rs.5,000/- per month. She is solely dependent on the deceased's income and has lost her financial capacity due to his sudden demise. Therefore, JS,J CMA No.602 of 2013 5 both the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 7. In the counter, Opposite Party-I stated that the deceased was suffering from ill health and died because he had not taken the proper medicines prescribed by his doctor. Opposite Party-II, in its counter, argued that, according to the post-mortem report, the death was neither natural nor caused by any vehicular accident. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 8. In the course of enquiry, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked on behalf of the applicant, and R.W.1 and B.W.1 were examined and Ex.B.1 was marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties. 9. The Commissioner, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, passed an award granting compensation of Rs.3,46,231/-, vide order dated 18.12.2012. Aggrieved by this, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by Opposite Party-II- Insurance Company on the ground that the Commissioner awarded compensation without considering the fact that the deceased was JS,J CMA No.602 of 2013 6 suffering from pre-existing heart disease, and although Opposite Party-I was aware of this, it permitted the deceased to travel long distance. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to cover the risk. 10. The only point that fell for consideration before this Court is whether the appellant/Insurance Company is liable to cover the risk of the deceased, who was suffering from pre-existing heart disease known to the employer, Opposite Party-I. 11. Ex.A.1 shows that the deceased was the driver of the lorry. On 02.12.2005, the deceased and the co-driver started from Delhi to Hyderabad in a lorry loaded with rice, and the deceased died on 06.12.2005 en route. This clearly proves that the deceased died during the course of employment. R.W.1 in cross-examination, admitted that the lorry belonged to Opposite Party-I and that the deceased was the driver of the lorry. The witness further stated that the deceased was paid Rs.5,000/- per month as salary and that the insurance policy was in force. The witness also denied having any personal knowledge of the deceased's ill health. JS,J CMA No.602 of 2013 7 12. The Assistant Manager of Opposite Party-II was examined as B.W.1 and deposed that although Opposite Party-I is having knowledge about the deceased’s ill health, he entrusted his vehicle to the deceased; therefore, Opposite Party-II is not liable to pay compensation. In cross-examination, B.W.1 has taken contradictory stands and finally admitted that the policy was in force and the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. 13. When a similar situation arose, a learned Single Judge of this Court in The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Chukkala Eshwari (C.M.A.No.33 of 2024 dated 22.03.2024) observed as under: “7. A similar view on similar facts was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Param Pal Singh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd and another reported in 2013 (3) SCC 409. In that case, the deceased was driving a truck. He felt chest pain and had stopped the truck safely. Immediately he was rushed to the hospital. But he died. After postmortem it was opined that the cause of the death was heart attack. In that factual background it was contended that death of the deceased was due to natural causes and the death had no casual connection to his employment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the English cases and Indian cases and after referring to Section 3(1) of the Employees Compensation Act held at para 29 as under: JS,J CMA No.602 of 2013 8 “29. Applying the various principles laid down in the above decisions to the facts of this case, we can validly conclude that there was causal connection to the death of the deceased with that of his employment as a truck driver. We cannot lose sight of the fact that a 45-year- old driver meets with his unexpected death, may be due to heart failure while driving the vehicle from Delhi to a distant place called Nimiaghat near Jharkhand which is about 1152 km away from Delhi, would have definitely undergone grave strain and stress due to such long distance driving. The deceased being a professional heavy vehicle driver when undertakes the job of such driving as his regular avocation it can be safely held that such constant driving of heavy vehicle, being dependent solely upon his physical and mental resources and endurance, there was every reason to assume that the vocation of driving was a material contributory factor if not the sole cause that accelerated his unexpected death to occur which in all fairness should be held to be an untoward mishap in his lifespan. Such an “untoward mishap” can therefore be reasonably described as an “accident” as having been caused solely attributable to the nature of employment indulged in with his employer which was in the course of such employer's trade or business.’ 8. In this case, the fact that death by heart attack occurred in the course of driving the lorry from Nagpur to Hyderabad is a clear indicative of the death having been caused due to employment induced stress and there can be no two ways about it. Hence, this Court does not find any grounds or any substantial questions of law to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Commissioner.” 14. The Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from its liability if there is no evidence of a pre-existing heart ailment, as the JS,J CMA No.602 of 2013 9 onus is on the Insurer to prove the pre-existing disease that caused or contributed to the death of the deceased. If the insurer cannot prove that no disclosed pre-existing condition was linked to the cause of death, they cannot repudiate the claim. Even if a pre- existing condition is found, the Insurer must demonstrate an excess or correction between that condition and the cause of the insured's death. If the disease that caused the death is different from the existing condition, the claim is still valid. 15. It is a fact that the deceased died during the course of employment due to strain and stress. The distance between Delhi and Hyderabad is approximately 1730 km, and therefore, the driver is put under constant strain and stress while driving the vehicle. Further, neither Opposite Party-I nor Opposite Party-II has placed relevant material before the Court to show that the deceased was suffering from a heart ailment. In the absence of the same, this Court cannot conclude that the deceased was suffering from a previous heart ailment and Opposite Party-I, who was in knowledge of the ill health of the deceased, has allowed the deceased to drive the vehicle for a long distance. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the order passed by the JS,J CMA No.602 of 2013 10 Commissioner, and the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. 16. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM 4th September, 2025 cbs JS,J CMA No.602 of 2013 11 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.602 of 2013 4th September, 2025 cbs