APHC010777092016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 186/2016 Between: 1. SMT G LAKSHMI, W.GODAVARI DIST AND 4 OTHERS, W/O LATE SRINIVASA RAO , AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O B.C. COLONY, DHARMAJIGUDEM, LINGAPALEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. SMT GOGUNTA SIVA JYOTHI, D/O LATE SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCC: MOTHER PROTECTION (STUDENT) R/O B.C. COLONY, DHARMAJIGUDEM, LINGAPALEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. GOGUNTA SRI RAM, S/O LATE SRINIVASA RAO , AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, OCC: MOTHER PROTECTION R/O B.C. COLONY, DHARMAJIGUDEM, LINGAPALEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. GOGUNTA SAVITRI, W/O NAGESWARA RAO , AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: DEPENDANT R/O B.C. COLONY, DHARMAJIGUDEM, LINGAPALEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. GOGUNTA NAGESWARA RAO, S/O LATE SEETHARAMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC: DEPENDENT. R/O B.C. COLONY, DHARMAJIGUDEM, LINGAPALEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. (APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 ARE BEING MINORS REP BY ITS THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN THE 1ST APPELLANT) ...APPELLANT(S) AND 2 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.186 of 2016 1. SRI N RAMA KRISHNA W GODAVARI DIST AND 1 OTHER, S/O SURYANARYANA, OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING NO. AP. 36 T 6849, H.NO. 6-63, HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, DHARMAJIGUDEM, LINGAPALEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. ORIENTAL INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD, REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, GUTTIKONDA ZOOM COMPLEX, NEAR VINAYAKA THEATRE, ELURU ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, is filed seeking to set a side the order passed in W.C. Case No. 16/2012 on the file of the Commissioner For Workmen's Compensation, Eluru and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Eluru, dated 13-10-2015. Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. NARAM NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S A V RATNAM 2. 46/A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY 3. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following: 3 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.186 of 2016 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.186 of 2016 JUDGMENT: Present appeal is preferred under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, “the Act”), assailing order, dated 13.10.2015, passed in W.C.Case No.16 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923-cum- Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Eluru, (“the Commissioner”), whereby the claim petition of the applicants filed for compensation is dismissed. 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 are wife, two minor children and parents of deceased. They preferred claim, under Section 19 of the Act, claiming compensation on account of death of husband of 1st applicant. The deceased stated to be driver of heavy vehicle. He was engaged with 1st respondent, owner of lorry bearing No.AP 36 T 6849. 2nd respondent is stated to be Insurer of the aforesaid vehicle. On 21.03.2012 while deceased was proceeding in aforesaid lorry from Karimnagar to Eluru, 4 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.186 of 2016 met with accident upon dashing with two other lorries, resulting in his death. Resultantly, the applicants have preferred present claim. (b) 1st respondent owner of lorry remained ex parte. (c) 2nd respondent filed written statement denying the employer – employee relationship; deceased possessing valid driving licence at the time of accident; that he was solely responsible and negligent in causing of the accident. (d) In support of the claim, 1st applicant - wife of deceased was examined as AW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. None were examined for respondents nor any documents were marked on their behalf. (f) The Commissioner after evaluating the evidence on record, has come to conclusion that the applicants failed to establish employer – employee relationship, which is one of the prime requirement for the purpose of awarding compensation. Having given definitive finding on the said aspect, the other issues raised were not delved upon by the Commissioner. Assailing the same, present appeal is preferred by the applicants. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Insurer. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants contended that the order passed by the Commissioner suffers from severe infirmity and the 5 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.186 of 2016 finding that there is no employer – employee relationship also is clearly perverse, inasmuch as, the evidence of AW.1, coupled with enquiry report under Ex.A2, clearly referred to that the lorry in which deceased was on duty, belong to the 1st respondent, and the same by itself is sufficient to demonstrate the employer – employee relationship. He also tried to advance arguments on the other issues raised. 6. Opposing the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Insurer tried to support the impugned order by contending that since the Commissioner has come to definitive conclusion based on the evidence available on record and the finding of fact arrived at would not raise any substantial question of law, the appeal itself is clearly not entertainable. 7. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions of both the learned counsel. 8. Present appeal raises following substantial question of law: Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, finding rendered by the Commissioner in relation to non-existence of employer – employee relationship, really suffers from any infirmity or perversity? And any substantial question of law arises in the matter? 6 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.186 of 2016 9. POINT: The present appeal arises under Section 30 of the Act, and it has to be entertained only on substantial questions of law. One of the grounds that would constitute a substantial question of law is perversity in the findings. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.1, while dealing with the scheme of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, clearly laid down that unless the grounds and question of law raised in an appeal under the Act are demonstrated to be substantial in nature, which is akin to the requirement in a second appeal, the findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner cannot be interfered with in a routine manner. Therefore, as the Act is unequivocal in stating that an appeal against the order of Commissioner can be entertained only if there exists substantial question of law, it must be examined whether any substantial question of law arises in the present case. 11. Keeping the aforesaid enunciated principle in view, the order under challenge is required to be considered. It is the case of the applicants that the deceased was working as driver and employed with the 1st respondent. Further, he died while on duty due to accident. In 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1105 7 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.186 of 2016 support of the same, wife of deceased was examined as AW.1 and Exs.A1 to A5 came to be marked. Though, the owner of subject lorry was arrayed as 1st respondent before the Commissioner, he remained ex parte. The evidence of AW.1 is only a self-statement and there is nothing credible, which support the claim of employer – employee relationship. Even Ex.A2 copy of inquest, on which much emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel for the applicants, also do not really clinch the issue, inasmuch as, the same would not be any worth of material for drawing conclusion that there exists employer – employee relationship. Since the relationship of employer – employee is pre- requisite for entertaining claims under Section 19 of the Act and that the burden lies on the applicants to prove the same, it has to be clearly demonstrated that there exists such relationship. The evidence on record has been properly appreciated by the Commissioner, and finding of fact has been arrived that the available evidence is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that there exists employer – employee relationship. The finding so recorded by the Commissioner, in opinion of this Court, do not really suffer from any infirmity nor is shockingly to be perverse to take any different view. Clearly, the present case does not raise any substantial question of law. Unless shocking perversity is shown even against a finding of fact, there would not be any substantial question of law. I see no merit in the appeal. 8 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.186 of 2016 12. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:14.10.2025. cs