I ■I APHC010831312015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN I.A No.1 of 2024 In/and CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 443 OF 2024 Appeal under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 aggrieved by the Order passed in E.C. Case No. 9 of 2011 dated 14-10-2014 on the file of the Court of Commissioner for Employees Compensation Act, 1923-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ongole, Prakasam District. Between: 1. Smt. Bodika Laxmamma, W/o Late Beerappa, aged about 35 years 2. Mr. Bodika Srinivasulu, S/o Late Beerappa, aged about 15 years (Minor) 3. Smt. Bodika Bondamma, W/o Late Jangaiah, aged about 67 years. All are R/o Lingasanipalli village, Kalvakurthy Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. (Appellant No.2 being minor rep natural Guardian mother B.Laxmamma i.e. Appellant No.1.) ...Appellants/Applicants AND % by its Proprietor, B.Chandrasekhar 1 M/S Chandrasekhara Motors, rep S/o Sudhakara Rao. Aged about 42 years. Owner of Lorry NKo. AP27W3348,Opp Autonagar, Throvagunta, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District. 2. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd, , rep by its Branch Nellore, SPSR Manager, 1 Floor, Kaizen Heights, Sunday Market Nellore District. ...Respondents/Opposite Parties lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Insurance Policy No.VGCO 170582000100 marked Ex.A6 in for Employees Compensation Act, in the affidavit filed in pleased to receive the xerox copy as a E.C.Case.No.9 of 2011, Commissioner Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ongole additional evidence by marking the same as 1923-cum- Counsel for the Appellants : Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri Kota Subba Rao The Court made the following order: APHC010831312015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN ri\/ii Ml.qCFLLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 443/2024 [3506] It 0:^ THE Between: LAXMAMMA AMP 2 OTHERS, W/0 LATE 1.SMT. BODIKA BEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 2. MR. BODIKA SRINIVASULU, S/0 LATE BEERAPPA, AGED about 15 years, ( MINOR) 3 SMT BLODIKA BONDAMMA, W/O LATE JANGAIAH AGED iROIlT 67 Y^RS. ALL ARE R/0 LINGASANIPALLl VILLAGE, KAIVAKURTHY mandal, mahabubnagar district. ^"™N0.2 BEING MINOR REP NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER B.LAXMAMMA l.E, APPELLANT NO.L. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1 M/s CHANDRASEKHARA MOTOR AND ANOTHER, REP BY ITS PROpSr, B.CHANDRASEKHAR S/0 SUDHA^RA RAO, Arpn AROUT 42 YEARS. OWNER OF LORRY NKO. AP27W3348, OPP AUTONAGAR, THROVAGUNTA, ONGOLE mandal, prejcasam district. 2 ROYAL SUNDARAM REP BY ITS BRANCH SUNDAY MARKET, I ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, , ., manager, 1 FLOOR, KAIZEN HEIGHTS. NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S); Appeal under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation /\ct 1923^ 2 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.443 of 2024 Compensatioh Act, 1923-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ongole, Prakasam District. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 receive the xerox copy of Insurance Policy No.VGCO 170582000100 as additional evidence by marking the same as marked Ex.A6 in E.C.Case.No.9 of 2011, Commissioner for Employees Compensation Act, 1923-cum- Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ongole. Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): I.KOTASI^BBARAO The Court made the following: 3 I CGR, J. C.M.A. No.443 of 2024 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN I.A.No.l of 2024 in/and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.443 of 2024 COMMON JUDGMENT: Present appeal is filed by the appellants assailing order, dated 14.10.2014, passed in E.C.Case No^9 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ongole (“the Commissioner”) t9 the extent of exonerating liability on the 2'^^ respondent -Insurer. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Commissioner. 3. Brief facts relating to the present appeal in a nutshell are as follows; (a) Applicants, three in number, preferred claim under the provisions of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, claiming an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for death,of husband of 1®‘ applicant, who was working as Cleaner in lorry bearing Registration No.AP 27 W 3348 owned by the 1®’ respondent along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. (b) Deceased while working as Cleaner in aforesaid lorry, during course of his employmentwent to Baramathiof Maharashtrafor picking CGR, J. C.M.A. No.443 of 2024 up of load consisting of APE Autos and on return in order to deliver the same at showroom of 1"‘ respondent, as they reached at late night hours, stationed the lorry nearby showroom for unloading in the early morning. In the morning when he went to the top of cabin for checking of load of autos, he got electrocuted and died on spot. The incident occurred during the course of employment and as the vehicle was insured with 2^^ respondent, claim was laid against both respondents 1 and 2. Even criminal case was registered in Crime No.220 of 2011 with Ongole Taluq Police Station. Claiming that the deceased was drawing a salary of about Rs.8,000/- p.m. and was aged 36 years at the time of incident, clairp was made for Rs.5,00,000/-. (c) 1®' respondent, who was employer and owner of the lorry, remained ex parte and 2^^ respondent Insurer filed counter denying the in which the incident has occurred and that it occurred during the course of employment. Further, that there was no policy in force to cover the incident claiming for compensation, besides disputing the quantum of claim, salary and age. (d) Based on the aforesaid pleadings available on record, the Commissioner has framed following points; 1. Whether the applicants are entitled for compensation as claimed by the applicants? 2. If so, to what relief the applicants are entitled?” manner CGR, J. C.M.A. No.443of 2024 (e) On behalf of the applicants, wife of deceased was examined as AW.1 and driver of the lorry, to be eyewitness, examined as AW.2 and got marked Exs.AI to A.5. None were examined for insurer nor any documents were marked. (f) Considering the evidence of AW.2 and the documents exhibited under Exs.AI FIR, A2-inequest report, A3-post mortem report and A4-letter of Assistant Engineer, APCPDCL, the Commissioner has come to conclusion that firstly, the death occurred on account of electric shock while deceased was checking the load of autos over the lorry and secondly, that deceased died during the course of employment. Considering the age of deceased as 36 years as per the Post Mortem report and applying minimum wages of Cleaner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.90, Labour, Employment, Training & Factories (Lab.ll) Department, dated 28.09.2007, incdme of deceased was assessed at The quantum of Rs.5,354/- p.m. as on the date of accident, compensation came to be accordingly determined under Section 4(a)(i) of Employees Compensation Act, 1923, for an amount of Rs.5,21,051/- along with interest at rate of 12% p.a. While coming to the aspect of liability, as the Insurer has taken stand that vehicle was not validly insured, though the applicants in the claim petition have specifically stated that there exists a valid policy, as even owner of vehicle remained ex parte, giving credence to the stand of insurer, it was held that CGR, J. C.M.A. No.443 of 2024 existence of insurance policy was not proved, therefore, the insurer was exonerated from the liability. The amount awarded, therefore directed to be paid by the 1®* respondent-owner of the lorry. Aggrieved f by the same, present appeal is preferred, (g) The appellants alongwith memorandum of appeal also filed I.A.No.1 of 2024 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to receive copy of Policy bearing No.VGCO 170582000100, dated 30.07.2010, as additional evidence by marking it as Ex.A6. In the affidavit filed in support of the said I.A., it has been stated that though in the cause title of the claim preferred before the Commissioner, the number of policy specifically referred to, as applicants were not privy to the copy of the same, the Commissioner has fastened burden to produce the ( them, rather than calling upon the Insurer to produce the particularly, when the owner of the vehicle remained ex parte, however, after securing the copy of the policy, the same has now been filed along with the appeal. It is also stated that as per policy, premium has been paid to cover even Cleaner as well, therefore, the present claim clearly is falling within the terms of the policy. , was was same on copy. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the 2^^ respondent Insurer. CGR. J. C M A. No 443 of 2024 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants contends that though the details of policy were specifically mentioned in the cause-title to the claim petition, the Commissioner, while adjudicating the liability, has proceeded to place the burden on applicants to prove the existence of policy rather than calling upon the Insurer to produce the same, which is clearly perverse. Therefore, in order to mitigate the ^ame, now, by way of additional evidence, even copy of the policy has been placed on record, which clearly covers even Cleaner within its ambit for the purpose of awarding compensation, hence, the Insurer equally would be liable to pay the compensation. He has placed reliance on the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in P.Krishnalah Naidu v. Smt.P.Nagamani^ to contend that even at the stage of appeal, it is open to receive additional evidence. Opposing the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the 2^"^ 1 respondent Insurer tried to support the impugned order by contending that as copy of policy was never produced before the Commissioner, 6. rightly, it was decided that in the absence of which, no liability could be fastened on the Insurer and further, it is too late in a day to come up with application to receive copy of the policy by way of additional evidence. 2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 908 = 2024 APHC 22646 8 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.443of2024 7. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions of both the learned counsel. Admittedly, while preferring claim, applicants have referred to the existence of policy to the subject vehicle. Even the details of policy, such as number has been mentioned in the claim. Now by way of I.A. No.1 of 2024, copy of said policy has been filed to consider along with main appeal. In view of the same, the appeal rises following substantial question of law; 8. Whether the appellate Court adjudicating appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, could receive additional evidence, in particular, copy of policy, which was not produced during consideration of claim? And whether it is for the applicants to produce copy of policy, particularly, when details of the same were furnished along with claim and on such ground the liability qua Insurer be exonerated? 9. POINT: The occurrence of accident and that the deceased died during the course of employment are not in dispute. As the insurer has been exonerated from liability, question of contesting on aforesaid findings does not arise, nor is there any appeal preferred by owner of the vehicle against the present order. pf; CGR, J. C M A. No 443 of 2024 The only issue that has been canvassed in the present appeal is regarding exoneration of insurer from liability on the ground that copy of policy was not placed before the Commissioner to cover the liability, now the copy of policy has been placed on record. This C9urt has gone through the contents of the policy, which clearly applies for the period from 31.07.2010 to 30.07.2011, for vehicle bearing Registration No.AP 27 W 3348, which is a make and model of Richer of the year 2006. As per the premium computation table, an amount of Rs.50/- has been paid to cover personal accidental benefits of Cleaner as well, however, not exceeding 7%. No counter has been filed opposing the application to receive copy of policy as additional evidence. 10. Learned counsel for the 2"^ respondent Insurer, however, tried to persuade this Court that it is too late for applicants to produce the copy of policy, as the same was not produced before the Commissioner, it cannot be considered at appellate stage. 11. The contents and coverage of the policy even to the Cleaner is 12. not disputed. The issue as to whether appellate Court can receive additional evidence has been considered by a co-ordinate Bench of this referred to by the learned Court in P.Krishnaiah Naidu’s case^ as The said judgment, while referring to the counsel for the appellants. 40 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.443of2024 judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Sharay Sing v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.^ held that as the insurance policy normally would be in the custody of either insurer or insured, it is the duty of either of them to produce the same before the Court/Tribunal when claims are laid, it would be impracticable for claimants, who are not privy to such policy, to produce at first instance. This Court is of further opinion that when there is a specific plea made in the claim mentioning the details of policy, the initial burden of showing that there exists a valid insurance policy covering the subject vehicle is discharged and the insurer insured against whom the liability is sought to be fastened have to in turn rebut the same by either producing the policy or show that there exists no such policy. In all fairness, the insurer or insured are expected to produce the copy of subject policy in doing justice. Therefore, this Court is convinced that the policy which is now exhibited through I additional evidence clearly covers the subject vehicle, on which, the deceased has succumbed while he was on duty. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2024 stands allowed and accordingly, the question is answered in the affirmative. or 13. In view of the same, the appeal stands allowed by setting aside the order of the Commissioner to the extent of exonerating liability on 2(2003) lOSCC 664 11 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.443 of 2024 insurer and the amount of compensation as determined by the Commissioner for an amount of Rs.5,21.051/- is directed to be paid by both the insurer and as well as the insured jointly and severely and the same be deposited before the Commissioner within 30 days from date of receipt of a copy of this judgment along with interest at the rate the of 12% p.a. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration any, in this case shall stand closed if Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Court of Commissioner for Employees Compensation Act, 1923- QUrfl-Xssistant Cbmrnissioner of Labour, Ongole, Prakasam District twith f^cdtds if«any) 2. One CC to iSri. .Madhava Rao Nalluri, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. Kota Subba Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 5. Two CD Copies Stu vna ■'1 HIGH COURT DATED:20/08/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT I.A No.1 of 2024 in/and CMA NO. 443 OF 2024 X 5 ^ - Current section ^ ALLOWING THE APPEAL