A m i ‘ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AWIARAVATI MONDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1426 OF 2011 Appeal Under Section 30 of W.C. Act aggrieved by the Order dated 28.04.2011 passed in WC.No.121/2008 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and AsstCommissioner of Labour, Kadapa. Between: The National Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager Divisional Office Ananthapur District. ...PETITIONER/APPELLANT AND f • • 1. Perugu Lakshmi Narayana And 2 Others, S/o. Tirumala Kondaiah Ex- Lorry Driver R/o. D.No. 2-327Av Pandillapalli Village, Kamalapurm Mandal and Kadapa District. 2. D. ramalinga Reddy (Major), S/o. Nagi Reddy Permit holder of the Lorry No. AP 27-V 7099 R/o. D.nd- 4/895, Mahatmanagar, Yerraguntala V & M Kadapa District.(R2 dismissed vide Court Order dated 14.07.2016) 3. U. Bhaskara Raju, S/o. Kotam Raju Policy Holder of the Lorry No. AP 27 V 7099 Kandurulu Village and Post, Tanguturu Mandal, Prakasam District.(OP No.2 in WC.No; 121 of 2008) ...RESPONDENTS I.A. NO: 2 OF 2011fCMAMP. NO: 2054 OF 2011) 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 t. ' ■ ' ■ pleased grant STAY of all further proceedings including the disbursement of the amount awarded vide order dated 28-4-201 passed in WC.No. 121 ' of 2008 on the file Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa.' Counsel for the Appellant(s); SRI. SRAVAN KUMAR MANNAVA Counsel for the Respondent No.l: M/S P RAJANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI J.U.M.V PRASAD The Court made the following: JUDGMENT APHC010210752011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3460] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1426/2011 Between: The National Insurance Company Limited ...APPELLANT AND Perugu Lakshmi Narayana And 2 Others and...RESPONDENT(S) Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SRAVAN KUMAR MANNAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.P RAJANI REDDY 2.J U M VPRASAD The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.M.A.No.1426 of 20ir JUDGMENT: The present appeal is filed against the order dated 28.04.2011 in W.C.No.121 of 2008 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa. 2. Facts leading to this appeal are as under; One Perugu Lakshminarayana/claimant was working as lorry Driver to the lorry bearing No.AP 27 V 7099 owned by O.P.No.1 since seven months prior to the date of accident. The claimant took the lorry to Bellary and got it loaded with iron ore to go to Krishnapuram. On 07.12.2007 at about 12.30 p.m., when the vehicle reached near Gooty, the lorry was grounded for want of repairs. The claimant then went to the mechanic shed at Gooty and on the instructions of the mechanic, he went to Ananthapuram along with one Ranganayakulu on a motor cycle to procure the spare parts. At Ananthapuram one Adiseshaiah boarded the motor cycle and while they were returning to Gooty, the motorcycle collided against a stationed Tractor and consequently, the claimant suffered injuries and fracture to his left 2 mandible and other parts of the body. The deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Gooty and thereafter to Vijaya Nursing Home, Proddatur and on the next day, he was shifted to SVIMS, Hospital, Tirupathi and from there to MIOT, Hospital, Chennai on 10.12.2007 and was treated there as inpatient up to 25.12.2007. 3. While the claimant was at Chennai Hospital, surgeries were performed on his hip and thereafter he had taken treatment under private doctors at Kadapa and also at Proddatur. It was stated that in spite of the treatment, the claimant became disabled and was unable to do his previous job as Driver and even unable walk for small distances. As the accident caused loss of income. employment as Driver, the application was filed seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/. 4. It was pleaded that as the vehicle was insured in the name of O.P.No.2, he was shown as a proper and necessary party to the claim application. O.P.No.1/ employer and O.P.No.2/Policy Holder remained ex-parte. 5. O.P.No.3/Insurance Company filed its counter disputing the employment wages, the manner of the accident and the nature of injuries along with disability. It was further pleaded that the 3 work without any disability and paid by O.P.No.2 to cover the claimant was attending normal pleaded that no extra premium was risk of the claimant among other objections. the Commissioner framed On the basis of the pleadings 6. the following issues; 1 Whether the injured Is a f nrovisions of the workmen’s Compensation Acf 19 with the accident arising out of and ,n the course of his employment? 2. What is'the age accident? 3. What were the wages the accident? 4. What is the injured? 5. Who are liable to pay Applicant? In the course of evidence examined as A.W.1 and claim i.e. C.C. of F.I.R. in Cr.No of Wound certificate, C.C. of Charge notice dated 20.'06.2008 District Medical Board licence. On behalf of Manager was examined as of the injured at the time of the paid to the injured at the time of quantum of compensation payable to the the compensation to the the claimant himself was i I marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 to support his 7. .172 of 2007 of Gooty P.S., C.Q. sheet, Office copy of legdl Physical disability certificate issued by RIMS Hospital, Kadapa and Drivirjig O.P.No.3/appellant, B.Narayana Assistant i R.W.1 and Exs.B.1 and B.2 w^re 4 f % marked i.e. Original copy of Policy and R.C. of the lorry bearing NO.AP27 V 7099. 8. The Commissioner taking into consideration the documentary evidence held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle and that claimant suffered grievous injuries in the said accident. It was further held that the accident was on account of employment with O.P.No. 1. The minimum wage of claimant was fixed by taking his age as 35 years @ Rs.5,439/- as per G.O.Ms.No.90 dated 28.09.2007 and awarded compensation of Rs.2,12,825/- making the O.P.Nos.1 and 3 jointly and severally liable to pay the amount. Hence, the present appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the accident cannot be framed to be one in the course of employment as the claimant was not driving the vehicle at the time of accident. It was contended that even as per the claimant, the accident occurred while he was sitting as pillion rider on the motorcycle and therefore the said act cannot be termed to be an accident in the course of employment. The further contention was that the claimant was working under O.P.No.1 while the policy stands in 5 the name of O.P.No.2 and in the absence of any relationship jural relationship of employer and employee could be established and the Insurance company is not liable for the compensation. between O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2, no Learned counsel for the Respondents contended that the occurred while the claimant was returning from 10. accident Ananthapuram after getting the spare parts for the lorry and as the work is in relation to the lorry, it can be termed to be an accident happened in the course of employment. As regards the second contention that though the employee is working under O.P.No.1, as there is an internal arrangement between O.P.Nos.1 and 2, the insurance company cannot be exonerated itself on this ground. Having heard the respective counsel, this Court is of the opinion that as the claimant went to Ananthapuram to get the parts of the vehicle, which was stuck at Gooty and as the 11. spare accident occurred while returning with spare parts, the same may be treated as in the course of employment since the purpose of the visit of the claimant to Ananthapuram was with reference to spare parts of the vehicle itself. 12. As regards the second contention, this Court is of the opinion that as the accident occurred in the course of employment and with reference to the vehicle of O.P.No.2, the Insurance company cannot exonerate itself of its liability. 13. Therefore, this Court does not find any substantial question of law to interfere with the order of the Commissioner and the appeal is dismissed without costs. 14. As there is long delay of 18 years from the date of accident and considering the uncertain addresses of claimants, the State Legal Services Authority shall coordinate with the concerned departments and ensure that the compensation is paid to the claimants directly into their Aadhar linked Bank Account. Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the State Legal Services Authority. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. SD/- E. KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To, 1 The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Asst ' Commissioner of iabour, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. (With ercord^ 2. The Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority, H^No.2-273/5 A BSR Complex Opp; to Traffic Police Station, Near A.P Secretariat, Malkapuram Village, Thulluru Mandal, Guntur District-522238. 3. One CC to Sri. Sravan Kumar Mannava, Advocate [OPUC] 4 One CC to Sri. P Rajani Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 5 One CC to Sri J U M V Prasad, Advocate [OPUC], 6 The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 7. Three CD Copies AL HIGH COURT DATED:17/02/2025 ORDER CMA.No.1426 of 2011 § 2 2 JUL 2025 Co ✓•it-# '^^sCmTentSectiojvx^ky' DISMISSING THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS