APHC010764452011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 212/2011 Between: National Insurance Company Limited ...APPELLANT AND Sri Somireddy Appala Naidu and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. RAMA MOHAN RAO KOTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.212 of 2011 JUDGMENT: 1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Order dated 19.03.2009 in W.C.No.14 of 2007 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam. 2. The insurance company is the Appellant. 3. The facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as follows:- The Claimant was working as a loading and unloading worker in a lorry bearing No.ADM 7049 owned by O.P.No.1. On 29.06.2004, the Claimant was travelling in the lorry for unloading the goods at Peda Makavaram Village, Koyyuru Mandal and the driver of the vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the vehicle and the lorry turned turtle and fell in a river by the side of the road. In the said accident, the Claimant suffered injuries and was shifted to Government Hospital, Narsipatnam and later shifted to K.G.H. Visakhapatnam. As per the claim, the Claimant suffered disability at 40% and was unable to work as loading and unloading worker due to the accident. In view of the functional disability, the income earning ability of the Claimant was lost by 100% and none engaged him as coolie. Since the Claimant was being paid Rs.130/- per day, the claim application was filed. 3 4. The insurance company had filed their counter disputing the claim as loading and unloading coolie and that the Claimant was travelling as a gratuitous passenger on the lorry on the date of accident. It was further pleaded that the Claimant was under the employment of Varma Raju but not under the employment of O.P.No.1 as per F.I.R. Therefore, there is no relationship between employee and employer and the insurance company cannot be made liable for the claim. 5. The Claimant himself was examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.9 in support of his claim. Ex.A.2 is the Wound Certificate, Ex.A.3 is the Disability Certificate and Ex.A.7 is the Bunch of Medical Bills among other documents. 6. On behalf of the insurance company, one Tadimati Ramakrishna, working as Assistant Manager was examined as R.W.1. 7. The Commissioner taking into consideration the evidence held that O.P.Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.1,15,243/- towards compensation. Hence, the present appeal is filed. 8. Heard M/s Rama Mohan Rao Kotha, learned counsel for the Appellant. 9. The only issue urged by the counsel for the Appellant is that the employee and employer relationship was in serious dispute. It was contended that as per the F.I.R and Charge Sheet, the Claimant was working as a Maestri and that he had a contract with 4 Varma Raju of Koyyuru Mandal and therefore the insurance company was wrongly made liable for compensation. 10. This Court after considering the submission made by the counsel for the Appellant is of the opinion that apart from F.I.R and Charge Sheet, there is nothing on record to substantiate the plea that the Claimant was working under one Varma Raju. Further, the outcome of the criminal case is not brought on record. The Commissioner on analysis of the evidence held that the Claimant was working as loading and unloading worker only. The said Varma Raju was not examined by the insurance company to substantiate their plea. The Commissioner noted that the material on record would show that the Claimant had organized team of workers for loading and unloading the cow dung in the accident lorry and held that the Claimant was working under O.P.No.1. The finding arrived at by the Commissioner cannot be said to be perverse as it is normal to presume a worker going in a lorry carrying cow dung as loading and unloading worker only. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court In Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav & Anr. Vs. New India Assurance Co., Ltd., & Anr1held that if the view of the commissioner is a possible view, the same cannot be interfered in an appeal under Section 30 of the Act. The paragraphs 23-26 are extracted below; “23. It has also been observed by this Court that the Commissioner is the last authority on facts involved in a case. In Golla Rajamma & Ors. v. Divisional Manager & Anr. (2- Judge Bench) it was observed that “under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner 1 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 746 5 is the last authority on facts. Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to reappreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act.” 24. Keeping in view the said principles, the impugned judgement, ex-facie, appears to be in contravention thereto. 25. On merits too, we find that the conclusions arrived at by the Commissioner, were undoubtedly “a possible view”, therefore extinguishing the possibility of perversity in findings. 26. A Bench of two learned Judges observed in C. Manjamma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. “15. That being the position, the view taken by the Commissioner had been a possible view of the matter in the given set of facts and circumstances; and there was no reason for the High Court to interfere with the same, particularly when the case did not involve any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 30 of Employees Compensation Act, 1933.” 12. In the light of the above, no substantial question of law is made out by the appellant and therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of compensation passed by the Commissioner. 13. Accordingly, the C.M.A is dismissed. 6 14. Considering that the accident pertains to the year 2004 and the appeal was pending before this court since 2011, this Court in order to ensure the fruits of the compensation actually reach the Claimants, directs the State Legal Services Authority to see that the compensation is paid to the Claimants with interest at the earliest. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 04.02.2025 IS 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANOUES APPEAL NO.212 of 2011 Date: 04.02.2025 IS