APHC010210522009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3459] PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.107 OF 2013 Between: The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Narasaraopet. --- Appellant/ Opposite Party No.2 And 1. Sri Pondugala Venkateswarlu, S/o.Late Bullaiah, 55 Years, R/o.D.No.16-5-13, Kothapet, Sattenapalli, Guntur District. --- Respondent/Applicant 2. Sri G. Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Punnaiah, Aged Major, D.No.15-8-1, 2nd Line, 12th Ward, Sattenapalli, Guntur District (Owner of Lorry AP-16-T-0725) --- Respondent/ Opposite Party No.1 Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 aggrieved by the order, dated 24.09.2012, passed in W.C.No.36 of 2007 by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Narasaraopet. IA No.1 OF 2013 (CMAMP No.158 OF 2013) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, JS,J CMA No.107/2013 2 the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 39 days in representing the CMA Sr.No.53315/2012. IA No.2 OF 2013 (CMAMP 239 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 stay the execution of orders passed in WC No.36 of 2007, dated 24.09.2012, by the Hon'ble Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Ass. Commissioner of Labour, Narasraopet, pending the final disposal of the main appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: Amancharla Satish Babu Counsel for the Respondent(s): G.V.S. Mehar Kumar The Court made the following: JS,J CMA No.107/2013 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 24.09.2012, passed in W.C.No.36 of 2007 by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Narasaraopet (for short, ‘the Commissioner’). The learned Commissioner allowed the Workmen Compensation Case and directed both the opposite parties jointly and severally to deposit an amount of Rs.2,89,160/-, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, against the original claim of Rs.3,00,000/-. 2. Heard Sri Amancharla Satish Babu, learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party-II, and Sri G.V.S. Mehar Kumar, 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. 4. The short question that fell for consideration before this Court is whether the Cleaner of the Lorry bearing No.AP-16-T-0725 is covered under the Act and Policy? 5. The deceased, Ponndugala Kondala Rao @ Konda, worked as a cleaner of the lorry bearing No.AP-16-T-0725, belonging to Opposite Party-I. The deceased went to Bethapudi Village in JS,J CMA No.107/2013 4 Phirangipuram Mandal on 13.06.2006 to load paddy bags. On 14.06.2006, the lorry was proceeding towards Chebrolu outskirts of NH-5 Road. The lorry, driven by its driver at high speed, overtook a bus behind him, lost control, and fell into vacant paddy fields. The deceased, who was sitting on the paddy bags, died on the spot. The applicant, father of the deceased, states that the deceased was 22 years old, earning Rs.2,500/- per month and Rs.50/- as daily batta. Since the accident occurred during employment, both Opposite Parties are liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. 6. The learned Commissioner, after hearing the counsel for the parties and examining the available record, concluded that the deceased worked under Opposite Party-I and that a Master and Servant relationship existed. Therefore, both Opposite Parties were held liable to pay compensation to the applicant. Since there was no material to show the earnings of the deceased, the Commissioner rightly considered the minimum wages payable to a Cleaner, as per G.O.Ms.No.30, LET & F (Lab-II), dated 27.07.2000, and awarded compensation of Rs.2,89,160/-. 7. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant/Opposite Party-II filed this appeal on the grounds that the deceased was travelling as an unauthorised passenger, did not have a master and servant relationship, and the vehicle was not insured for the Cleaner. Therefore, the appellant/Opposite Party-II has no liability to pay compensation to the applicant. JS,J CMA No.107/2013 5 8. On behalf of the applicant, he was examined as AW.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked. On behalf of the Opposite Party-II, RW.1 was examined, and Ex.B-1 was marked. 9. In the counter filed by Opposite Party-I, it was stated that the driver of the vehicle holds a valid driving license and that the vehicle is insured with Opposite Party-II. Therefore, Opposite Party-II is liable to pay compensation to the applicant. Opposite Party-II, apart from denying the existence of an employee-employer relationship and that the deceased was not a cleaner of the lorry, has not provided any rebuttal evidence. AW.1 explicitly testified that the deceased was a lorry cleaner. In Ex.A-1 - FIR, it was also stated that the deceased was a lorry cleaner, indicating the existence of an employee-employer relationship and that he died during the course of his employment. 10. During the course of cross-examination, RW.1, who was working as an Assistant in Opposite Party-II establishment, stated that there was no coverage of the policy for the Cleaner and no additional premium was paid for the Cleaner, but he did not corroborate this by adducing evidence. Therefore, the evidence given by RW.1 does not prove that no premium was paid for the Cleaner. Consequently, this Court concludes that the policy was in force on the date of the accident, and the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation along with Opposite Party-I. 11. In The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Madurai Vs. K.Murugan (C.M.A. (MD) No.978 of 2013, JS,J CMA No.107/2013 6 dated 15.02.2024), a learned Single Judge of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court held at Para 18 of the judgment as under: “18. On careful perusal of the judgment, it is clear that in the absence of any clear demarcation of duties of a Helper or a cleaner and in view of the fact that Helper and cleaner are interchangeably used, declining claim for the reason that deceased was engaged as a helper and not Cleaner is wholly unjustified. In the case on hand, the purpose of vehicle is mentioned and the policy also issued as special type of vehicle and therefore, the policy is covered.” 12. In Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and another1, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the question of law is about understanding or interpreting the law. It does not depend on specific facts but on legal rules. Since the Opposite Parties did not contradict the evidence given by AW.1, this Court feels that the order passed by the learned Commissioner, Narasaraopet, does not suffer from any infirmities. 13. However, as the learned Commissioner failed to specify the element of interest on the amount awarded, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shobha and others v. The Chairman, Vithalrao Shinde Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited and others2, this Court feels it appropriate to hold that the applicant is entitled to interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the amount awarded, i.e., Rs.2,89,160/- from the date of the accident till the date of realization. 1 AIR 2007 SC 248 2 Civil Appeal No.1860 of 2022, Dt.11.03.2022 JS,J CMA No.107/2013 7 14. Accordingly, with the above observation, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 04.09.2025 DSH