IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 441 OF 2011 Appeal Under Section 30 of Work men compensation against the Orders dt. 29-6-2010 made in WC No. 9 of 2005 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour Anantapur. Between: The United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Rep. by its Divisional Manager Subhash Road Anantapur ...Appellant / Opposite Party No. 2 AND 1. Chakali Appecherla Bojjanna, S/o. Venkatappa Aged about 44 years 2. Chakali Appecherla Chinnakka, W/o Bojjanna. 3. Chakali Appecherla Ranganna, S/o Bojjanna 4. Chakali Appecherla Venkatappa, S/o Bojjanna 5. Chakali Appecherla Bhagyalakshmi, D/o Bojjanna (The Respondent No.3 to 5 are Minors, Rep. by their father Bojjanna Respondents No.1) All are Hindus, Dependants R/a Konakondta Village, Vajrakarur Mandal, Anantapur District. / / ...Respondent No.1 to 5 / Petitioner No. 1 to 5 I ■* ■ - 6. H.C. Sreerama Reddy, S/o H.C. Narayana Reddy Major, P. Jalaalapuram Village, Singanamala^Mandaf, Anantapur District, (Owner of Tractor and Trailer bearing NO. AP-02-U-&27 & Ap-02-U-856) ...Respondent No.6 / 0pp. Party No.1 I.A. NO: 2 OF 2010fCMAMP. NO: 2325 OF 2010) 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 all further proceedings including the withdrawal of the money deposited before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and deputy Commissioner of Labour, Anantapur in WC No. 9 of 2005 dated 29-06-2010. Counsel for the Appellant :SRI. NARESH BYRAPANENI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI. INENI VENKATA PRASAD The Court made the followIngiORDER ■ 1 ! IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONPURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY riwii Mlsr.FI LAMFOUS APPEAL NO: 441/2011 APHC010750972011 [3460] r Between: The United India’Insurance Co. Ltd., Anantapur AND Chakali Appecherla Bojjanna 5 Others and Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1.NARESH BYRAPANENl Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. INENI VENKATA PRASAD The Court made the following: ...appellant i ...RESPONDENT(S) I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VI3AY C.M.A.No.441 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The present appeal is filed against the order dated 29.06.2010 in Vy.C.No.09 of 2005 passed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of 1. Labour, Anantapur. Facts leading to this appeal are as under; 2. The applicants are the parents, brothers and sister of the deceased, Chakali Appacherla Thayann, who was working as an unloading Coolie (hamali) under opposite party- I in Tractor bearing No. AP 02/U-927 A & Trailer No. AP 02/U-856. On 18.01.2004 at 07.00AM deceased along with other workers were travelling with a load of gravel on the instructions of the Opposite Party No.1. When the said vehicle reached Mary Matha church, Guntakal town, the driver of the vehicle drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner and deceased fell from the tractor. As a result, he suffered fatal injuries and succumbed to death. It was also pleaded that the deceased was aged about 20 years and employed by opposite party No.1 at a wage of Rs.3000/-per month> 2 The owner i.e. Opposite Party No.1 filed a counter admitting all the averments in the claim application. The Opposite Party No.2 i.e. the Insurance company filed a regular formatted denying every syllable of the claim application including the validity of driving licence of the driver of the tractor and also contended that the vehicle is insured for agricultural purpose but 3. counter at the time of accident it is being used for commercial purposes, existing policy does not cover the risk of the Therefore, the deceased. 4. The father of the deceased examined himself as A.W.1 and behalf of the claimants and on Administrative Officer got marked EX.A.1 to A.7 on behalf of the insurance company an examined as R.W.1 and got marked EX.B.1 to B.3. after elaborately examining the referring to the Judgements of the Court and varied High Courts had opined The Commissioner 5. evidence on record Honourable Supreme that the deceased was employee of the opposite party No.1 and liable for the compensation held Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 as and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,52,952/. Hence, the present appeal is filed. %4. / 3 6. Heard Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri M.S.R.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the Respondents. In the grounds of appeal, the substantial questions urged were that the tractor is not used for agricultural purposes and the driver of the Tractor does not poses the valid licence and that the risk of the deceased was not covered under the policy of the Insurance company. 7. The issue that falls is, whether there is a question of law for this Court to interfere with the findings of the Commissioner required under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. 8. as 9. The findings as regards the age, income taken by the Commissioner and the manner of accident are not in dispute. The only issue that falls for consideration is, whether the insurance company can be made liable for the compensation payable to the claimants. 10. The principal ground of challenge was that the deceased, being a workman and traveling in a tractor, is not covered under the policy> It is the contention of the counsel for the Appellant 4 that the policy does not cover the labourer-deceased traveling in the vehicle. The insurance policy was marked as Ex.B.1. The Commissioner was of the opinion that the Ex.B.1 mentions applicability of the policy as per “conditions and clauses’ attached, but no such “conditions or clauses” were attached by the insurance company while marking Ex.B.1 document. The Commissioner, therefore, held that the lack of coverage of policy was not effectively established by the insurance company. In this appeal also, no attempt was made by the Appellant 11. to file the “conditions and clauses” as attached to the Ex.B.1 policy. Notwithstanding the non-filing of the same. Section 145 (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was amended vide the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 elaborating the term ‘third party’. As per the. amended definition, ‘third party’ includes persons other than the owner and the driver also. This Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Savidi 12. Anjaneyulu, 2024' has held that the amendment to the definition of Section 145 (i) of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 is only clarificatory and therefore it is applicable retrospectively iSCC OnLine AP 4840 5 covering the ri§k of the driver or any other co-worker as third- party. In this case the deceased being a loading and unloading 13. worker cannot be- said to be a gratuitous passenger and comes within the definition of amended definition of ‘third party’ under section 145(i) of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 as it stands today and would be covered by Ex.B.1 Policy. 14. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the commiscioner and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed without costs. The State Legal Services Authority shall ensure that the compensation is paid to the claimants directly into their Aadhar linked bank account. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. SD/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REOISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// ■1. SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Commissioner for Workmens Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour Anantapur (with records) 2. The Secretary, State Legal Sevices Authority, Amaravati, Guntur District, A.P. 3. One CC to Sri. Naresh Byrapaneni, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. Ineni Venkata Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 5. The Section Officer, V R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 6. Three CD Copies i i ; E i / 7^ 1 HIGH COURT DATED:08/01/2025 ^ ■ i; ORDER CI\/IA.No.441 of 2011 AND/f/5* a. 5 16 MAY 2025 B •i'/J DISMISSING THE APPEAL