APHC010094902014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 662/2014 Between: T Bala Lingam @ Bala Linga, Anantapur Dist ...APPELLANT AND K Lakshmi Narayana Anantapur Anr and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. INENI VENKATA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P BHANU PRAKASH 2. VUPPALAPATI SRINIVAS RAJU The Court made the following: 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.M.A.No.662 of 2014 JUDGMENT: This Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act questioning the order dated 26.03.2014 in W.C.No.21 of 2005 passed by the Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation Act and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Ananthapuramu. The parties are referred to as per their nomenclature before the Commissioner. 2. The facts leading to this Appeal are as under: The Claimant was working as Driver of the vehicle bearing No.AP 02-U-5616 owned by the Opposite Party No.1. On 29.03.2004, while the Claimant was proceeding from Pileru to Madhanapalli and near to reach Kamchamvaripalli had collided against a tripper lorry bearing No.TN23-D-8677 and in the said accident, the Claimant suffered fracture to both hip bones and multiple injuries. Immediately, he was taken to Government Hospital, Pileru and after initial treatment, he was shifted to SVRRGGH, Tiruprathi, where he took treatment as in-patient and also after discharge as out-patient. A case in Cr.No.40 of 2004 3 under Sections 337 & 338 IPC were registered by the Pileru Police. 3. As per the Claimant, his hip bone was operated upon and in view of the injuries, he is not in a position to drive the lorry. It was in that context, the claim petition was filed for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation. 4. Opposite party No.1 i.e. the employer remained ex parte. Opposite party No.2/Insurance company filed its counter disputing the claim and contended that the vehicle was not insured with them. The claimant himself examined as A.W.1 and Dr.K.Satish was examined to establish the injuries. Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked on his behalf and no documentary evidence was marked by the Respondents. 5. Considering the evidence, the Commissioner framed the following issues: 1. Whether the applicant was an employee as per the provisions of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 and he met with the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting in to disability and loss of earning capacity? 4 2. If so, what was the age of the injured applicant at the time of accident? 3. What were the wages paid to the injured workman at the time of accident? 4. What is the quantum of amount payable to the applicant as compensation? 5. Whether the O.P.I and O.P.II are liable to pay compensation? 6. Whether the crime vehicle was get insured with the Opposite Party No.II ? 6. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Commissioner held that no details were produced by the Claimant regarding copy of insurance policy, permit, trip sheet etc., to establish the employer-employee relationship and the insurance policy. Apart from that the Commissioner also noted that the driving licence was also not filed by the Claimant and consequently, the claim was rejected. Hence, the present appeal. 7. Heard Sri I.Venkata Prasad, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri P.Bhanu Prakash and Sri V.Srinivasa Raju, learned counsel for the Respondents. 5 8. Learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the Claimant cannot be put to loss as the O.P.No.1 remained ex parte as the accident and the injuries sustained are evidenced by Exs.A.1 to A.3 i.e. Attested copy of FIR, Attested copy of wound Certificate and Attested copy of Charge sheet. 9. The substantial question of law that arises for consideration is: “Whether the Commissioner was correct in rejecting the claim of the Appellant?” 9. Having examined the oral and documentary evidence and the contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant, this Court is of the opinion that the accident is established by virtue of Exs.A.1 to A.3 as contended by the learned counsel for the Appellant. Further the fact that the Claimant was driving the vehicle is also established. As regards the disability, the evidence of A.W.2 i.e. Dr.K.Satish, who had examined the Claimant discloses the injuries suffered by him and Ex.A.7- Disability Certificate showing the loss of earning capacity issued by the Government General Hospital, Ananthapuramu @ 20%. The Commissioner did not consider the fact that the O.P.No.1 6 remained ex parte and did not come forward to give explanation as to in what capacity the Claimant was driving the vehicle on the ill-fated day. 10. Considering the fact that the Claimant was driving the vehicle has been established beyond reasonable doubt, this Court is of the opinion that Commissioner committed an error in not making the O.P.No.1 liable for the compensation. The Commissioner failed to see that even if the Claimant does not possess driving licence, the owner cannot be exonerated under this Act. 11. Considering the stand of the insurance company that the offending vehicle was not insured with the insurance company and as no policy was filed by the Appellant to establish the liability on insurance company, the liability to pay compensation is restricted to O.P.No.1 only. 12. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent of fastening the liability on O.P.No.1 only. As the age of the appellant is 37 years at the time of accident and the disability is 20% as per Ex.A.7, the compensation payable is: 20/100 X 60/100 X 4000 X 192.14 = Rs.92,227/- 7 13. Interest @ 12% shall be paid from the date of accident till the date of payment. 14. The claim against the insurance company stands dismissed. The State Legal Services Authority shall ensure that the compensation is paid to the claimant directly into his Aadhar linked bank account. 15. The Appeal is therefore partly allowed against O.P.No.1/Respondent No.1/Employer only. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY,J Date: 04.02.2025 KLP