IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 643 OF 2013 Appeal under Section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act, against the Order dated 05-08-2005 passed in W.C No.32/2004 on the file of the Commissioner Workmen Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nellore. Between: The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Reptd. by its Branch Manager, Subedarpet, Nellore. ...Appellant/Resp No.2 AND 1. Gangapatham Marthamma, W/o late G. Janardhan, aged 37 years, R/o. Northrajupalem Village & Post, Kodavalur Mandal, Nellore District. 2. Gangapatnam Surekha, D/o. Late G. Janardhan, aged 18 years, R/o. Northrajupalem Village & Post, Kodavalur Mandal, Nellore District. 3. Gangapatnam Sudheekshana, D/o. Late G. Janardhan, aged 16 years, R/o. Northrajupalem Village & Post, Kodavalur Mandal, Nellore District. 4. Gangapatnam Stalla, D/o. Late G. Janardhan, aged 11 years, R/o. Northrajupalem Village & Post, Kodavalur Mandal, Nellore District. 5. Gangapatnam Devasahayam, S/o. Late G. Janardhan, aged 9 years, R/o. Northrajupalem Village & Post, Kodavalur Mandal, Nellore District. 6. Gangapatnam Meeraiah, S/o. Masthanaiah, R/o. Northrajupalem Village & Post, Kodavalur Mandal, Nellore District. ...Respondents/Applicants 7. S. Seenaiah, s/o. Subbaiah, Owner of Lorry No. AP-03-V-0810, aged about 43 years, R/o. Tarunavai Village & Post, Sangam Mandal, Nellore District. Respondents 3 to 5 being minors reptd. By their mother and guardian 1st respondent G. Marthamma. ...Respondent/Respondent No.1 l-A. NO: 1 OF 2017fCMAMP. NO: 1731 OF 2017) 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 permit me to amend the petition in respect of the claim as Rs.12,00,000/- in place of Rs.4,00,000/- in WC No.32/2004 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour at Nellore. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI KESAVI KUMARI NEMALA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K VENKATA RAO & SRI T DAMODAR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT r' APHC010042612013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0-=* [3460] TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 643/2013 Between; The New India Assurance Company Ltd, ...APPELLANT Nellore AND Gangapatham Marthamma 6 Others ...RESPONDENT(S) and Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1. KESAVI KUMARI NEMALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K VENKATA RAO 2. TDAMODAR The Court made the following: A HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.M.A No. 643 of 2013 JUDGMENT:- The present Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 questioning the order dated 05.08.2005 in W.C.No.32 of 2004 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Guntur. The parties are referred to as per their nomenclature before the Commissioner. 2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under: The Claimants i.e. Respondents 1 to 6 are the wife, minor children and father of the deceased. They filed the application seeking compensation on the ground that the deceased G. Janardhan was working as a Driver in a mini lorry bearing No.AP 03-V-0810 and the same was insured with Opposite Party No.2 Insurance Company under Policy No.621101/31/03/02471. 3. On 14.04.2004, the Claimant was driving the lorry Nellore-Bombay Road and reached Nandavaram Village, Tank Bundat about 16:15 hours. At that place, the lorry met with an accident and the deceased suffered grievous injuries on 2 and died on 18.04.2004 at General Hospital, Chennai while undergoing treatment. A criminal case in Cr.No.34 of 2004 was registered by Marripadu Police, Nellore District. It was also pleaded that the deceased is being given Rs.4,000/- towards monthly wages. Hence, the application is filed claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Opposite Party No.1 i.e., owner of the vehicle filed 4. counter that the lorry was being insured with Opposite Party No.2 under the policy as mentioned in the claim application. 5. The insurance company filed its counter denying the contents of the claim and the relationship of employer- employee among other grounds. Considering the pleadings, the Commissioner framed 6. the following issues: 1. Whether the applicants are entitled for compensation as claimed in the application? 2. If so, to what relief the applicants are entitled? In the course of evidence, the Claimant No.1 had 7. examined herself as A.W.1 and fellow worker was examined as A.W.2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.9 i.e.. Xerox copy of FIR, attested xerox copy of inquest report, attested xerox copy of M.V.I report, attested xerox copy of Memo, true copy of Death 3 Report, office-copy of Lawyer’s notice dated 23.09.2004 to opposite parties, postal acknowledgments, original driving licence of the deceased workman and true copy of post mortem report. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was let in, but Ex.B1 copy of the insurance policy was marked. The Commissioner, having taken into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, awarded an amount of.Rs.3,73,047/- and Opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable for the said amount. Hence, the present appeal is filed. 8. Heard Smt. Kesavi Kumari Nemala, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri T.Damodar and K.Venkata Rao, learned counsel for the Respondents. Learned counsel for the Appellant contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 27.07.2000, under Minimum Wages Act, the wages of Light Motor Vehicle is Rs.1,847/- per month and the Commissioner erred in taking the wages at the rate of Rs,3,773/- per month. The judgment of this Court reported in United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Hyderabad v. Vaggu 9. 4 Balram and others^ was relied upon to substantiate the said plea that minimum wages should be adopted. - 10. Learned counsel for the Respondents contended that there is no difference between the incomes of the Heavy Motor Vehicle and Light Motor Vehicle and contended that there is no bar for the Commissioner to make an assessment with regard to the income as was being done in motor vehicles’ cases. 11. Having heard the respective counsel, to start with, this Court is of the opinion that determining compensation, the minimum wages under Minimum Wages Act, are only a yardstick for determining compensation and there is no mandate under the Act to fix compensation as per minimum wages under Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The definition of the term “wages” as per section 2(m) of the Act has no reference to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The only bar under the Minimum Wages Act is provided under Explanation II to Section 4, which limits the monthly wages of a workman @ Rs. 4,000/- as applicable at the time of accident. ^2004 (3) ALD 156 5 P' The license of the deceased was marked as Ex. A. 8 and 12. the driving license shows that the deceased was permitted to drive Light Motor Vehicle as well as Heavy Transport Vehicle. The Commissioner under this Act is entitled to determine wages of the deceased by guess work and as long as the amount is less than the amount specified under Explanation II to Section 4 (Rs.4,000/-at the time of accident), the insurance company cannot have any grievance, company intends to dispute the same, the onus is on the If the insurance company to establish that the wages determined are excessive. In this case, there is no evidence. 13. Therefore, this Court does not find any error in the order of the Commissioner. The Appeal is therefore dismissed. As the accident pertains to the year 2004, the State Legal Services Authority is directed to ensure that the 14. compensation is paid to the claimant directly into his Aadhar linked bank account. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pendingapplications,if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Commissioner Workmen Compensation Commissioner Labour, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. and Assistant “-egal Service Authority, H.N0.2-23/554-A, V.S.R Commercial Complex, Malkapuram Village SutDistrich5222S.°'’" 3. One CC to Spitkesavi Kumari Nemala, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. K Venkata Rao & T Damodar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Three CD Copies (f'k SAM vna HIGH COURT DATED:11/02/2025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.643 of 2013 te 2 4 MAR M25 I Current Section . £fSPATCV<^i<5^ o DISMISSING THE C.M.A WITHOUT COSTS