APHC010525032012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3459] PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.315 OF 2012 Between: IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, 2nd Floor, Uma Chambers, Banjara Hills Road, Hyderabad. --- Appellant and 1. Nimmakayala Vasudevamma, W/o.Late N.Muni Reddy, Aged 48 years, Agriculture Coolie, R/o.D.No.6/800, Sankarapuram, Kadapa City. 2. Nimmakayala Suhashini, D/o.Late N.Muni Reddy, Aged 23 Years, R/o. D.No.6/800, Sankarapuram, Kadapa City. 3. M. Khader Reddy, S/o.Khader Reddy, Aged about 41 Years, Occ:Owner of the Tractor, R/o.Peddaguruvaluru (V), Obulreddipeta (M), Kadapa District. --- Respondents Appeal under Section_____against orders IA No.1 of 2011 (CMAMP 2085 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 pleased condone the delay of 45 days in JS,J CMA No.315/2012 2 filing the above appeal against the order dated 04-05-2011 passed in WC.No.153 of 2008 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa. IA No.2 of 2011 (CMAMP 2103 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 pleased grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the order dated 04-05-2011 passed in WC.No.153 of 2008 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa pending disposal of the above Appeal. IA No.1 of 2012 (CMAMP 547 of 2012): 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 vacate the interim stay granted in CMAMP.No.2103 of 2011 in CMASR No.41366 of 2011 dated 04-11-2011 Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Srinivasarao Kamarajugadda Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Sri J. Janakirami Reddy The Court made the following: JS,J CMA No.315/2012 3 JUDGMENT: The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 30 of the Workmen‟s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, „the Act of 1923‟), is filed by the appellant/insurer challenging the order, dated 04.05.2011, passed in W.C. No.153 of 2008 by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa (hereinafter referred to as „the learned Commissioner‟). 2. The applicants are the mother and sister of the deceased workman, who worked as a driver under Opposite Party-I. 3. On 31.01.2008, the deceased, acting on the instructions of Opposite Party-I, proceeded to transport sand from the riverbed to OP-I's fields. After loading the sand, he stopped the tractor to attend his personal needs and came into contact with an electric fencing wire, resulting in his instant death. Following a complaint lodged by the V.R.O., the Police registered Crime No.20 of 2008 dt.07.02.2008. The death occurred was in the course of employment, thereby rendered OP-I and OP-II liable to pay compensation jointly to the applicants. 4. Opposite Party-I filed written statement admitting that the deceased was his workman and his death occurred in the course of employment. 5. Opposite Party-II filed a counter stating that the applicants must prove the deceased was working under OP-I. The records are JS,J CMA No.315/2012 4 fabricated for unlawful gain, and the incident did not occur during the course of employment. 6. During the trial, on behalf of the applicants, AW.1, the mother of the deceased, was examined, and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of Opposite Party-II, RW.1, Relationship Associate in the Insurance Company was examined, and Ex.B-1 was marked. 7. The appellant/insurer argued that the deceased died due to electrocution and contended that there was no employer-employee relationship. Furthermore, AW.1 has failed to produce any document indicating that OP-I employed the deceased. 8. At the time of the incident, the deceased was 23 years old, earning a monthly salary of Rs.5,000/- and additionally he was paid batta of Rs.1,000/-. His mother and sister, who are the applicants, depend on his income. The deceased possessed a valid driving license No.DLFAP004209642005, issued by the RTO Kadapa on January 24, 2005. The OP-II admitted that the tractor is covered under commercial vehicle package policy for the period from 15.02.2007 to 14.02.2008. 9. During cross-examination of OP-II, AW-1 stated that his deceased son was employed as a driver under OP-I and had died due to an electric shock. Furthermore, OP-I, in his written statement, admitted that the deceased was his workman and that his death occurred in the course of his employment. The findings recorded before the Commissioner in Ex.A-4 — the charge sheet — indicated that the deceased was a workman of OP-I. OP-II denied the JS,J CMA No.315/2012 5 deceased‟s employment with OP-I but failed to produce any evidence to substantiate their claim/pleading. Additionally, the individual who testified on behalf of OP-II explicitly stated that he was not an eyewitness and that his testimony was based solely on available documents. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer relied on a three- judge bench decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Company v. Bai Valu Raja and others1. He argued that the ruling clarifies that an employer is not liable for accidents occurring during an employee‟s commute before reaching the employer‟s premises or its notional extension. This establishes clear boundaries for what constitutes the “course of employment” and prevents open-ended employer liability, even for essential journeys. It also emphasizes that an employer is liable only for accidents occurring during travel to or from work if there is a direct nexus with employment. 11. Additionally, whether the accident occurred during the course of employment depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The respondent/applicant argues that the deceased proceeded from his house to the riverbed under OP-I‟s instructions, with his tractor loaded with sand. Furthermore, OP-I instructed him to transport the sand from the riverbed to their fields. Therefore, it can be inferred that the deceased was in the course of employment until the sand was deposited in OP-I's fields. Moreover, OP-II failed to issue a notice to examine the other tractor operated by Gantam 1 (AIR 1958 SC 881) JS,J CMA No.315/2012 6 Devabakthudu, the driver who followed the deceased, to determine whether the deceased had loaded sand onto that tractor. Additionally, the charge sheet filed by the police states that the death occurred during the course of employment, as marked in Ex.A-4. Consequently, OP-II has failed to establish that the deceased was not an employee of OP-I. Therefore, the employer- employee relationship between OP-I and the deceased is presumed to exist. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents/applicants cited a decision of the Kerala High Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Thankappan2, highlighting that acts of helplessness related to work, performed near the workplace and in proximity to the work schedule, can be considered part of employment. 13. Learned counsel further relied on a Division Bench decision of the High Court of Madras in Thiru T. Shanmuga Mudaliar; The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited v. TMT Noorjahan; Minor Mohd. Amsad; Minor Apasana Parveen and Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited; T. Shanmuga Mudaliar; Noorjahan; Mohammed Amsad (Minor) and Apsana Parveen (Minor)3, wherein it was held as follows at Para No.8: “[8] There can be no dispute that the deceased died in the course of the employment since there was no occasion for him to be at the Tiruvannamalai Bus stand unless he had 2 2006 ACJ 554 3 2002 LawSuit (Mad) 1938 JS,J CMA No.315/2012 7 been driving the bus. It is futile to contend otherwise. The evidence of the conductor of the same bus, who had seen the deceased fall and die at the very spot where the bus had stopped cannot be ignored. The objections to the claim based on non-filing of the FIR or post-mortem report deserve no consideration. The claimants had pleaded overstrain as having contributed to the death. The accident, the unlooked for mishap, had happened at a spot, where the deceased would not have been but for the fact he was discharging his duty as a driver. It is capable of being attributed to the strain, ordinarily, inherent in the discharge of his duty. So the claim falls squarely within the Act”. 14. Meeting basic needs near the workplace was incidental to employment, establishing a causal connection. Therefore, this Court finds that the deceased driver was acting within the scope of employment. The facts and circumstances of each case must be carefully considered to determine whether the accident arose out of and in the course of employment of a workman. Additionally, the policy is an act policy, and OP-I paid an extra premium of Rs.25/-. Consequently, the appellant-insurer is liable to pay the compensation. 15. The decision relied on by learned counsel for the appellant/insurer in National Insurance Company Limited v. Prembai Patel and others4 is to determine the extent of an insurance company‟s liability when the owner of a motor vehicle has 4 (2005) 6 SCC 172 JS,J CMA No.315/2012 8 purchased a policy covering only the minimum statutory requirement. 16. The appellant/insurer has not contested the validity of the insurance policy. In the chief-examination affidavit submitted by the appellant, it was acknowledged that the branch office issued Policy No.36671031 for the tractor bearing No.AP04-V-4503 of OP-I, under a commercial vehicle package policy for the period from 15.02.2007 to 14.02.2008, as marked Ex.B-1. Since the policy covers the risk to drivers, the insurer who issued the policy is liable to pay compensation. 17. The employer admitted that the deceased was his employee, supported by the FIR registered by the police. The appellant's assertion that the deceased did not die in the course of employment is thus refuted. Furthermore, the vehicle was covered by a valid commercial vehicle insurance policy from 15.02.2007 to 14.02.2008, which included the tractor and trailer driver. Consequently, the Commissioner has rightly considered G.O.Ms.No.90 and awarded compensation to the respondents. 18. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the order, dated 04.05.2011, passed in W.C. No.153 of 2008, by the learned Commissioner, Kadapa. 19. However, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Mubasir JS,J CMA No.315/2012 9 Ahmed and others5, followed in Ajaya Kumar Das and another v. Divisional Manager and another6, the respondents/applicants are entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. on the compensation amount from the date of accident till the date of realization. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date:22.12.2025 DSH 5 (2007) 2 SCC 249 6 Civil Appeal No.447, Dt.24.01.2022