APHC010104412019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 565/2019 Between: 1. POLISETTI RAMAKRISHNA, S/O MASA RAO, OWNER OF SRI LAKSHMI VEERABHADA COIR FACTORY, SRI SATYA VEERABHADRA COCONUT FIBRE (PEECHU) FACTORY, 6TH WARD, KAJALURU, KAJULURU MANDAL, E.G. DIST. ...APPELLANT AND 1. SANGADI ADI LAKSHMI, W/o Jagannadham, R/o Vontitadi, kajuluru Mandal, East Godavari Dist. ...RESPONDENT Appeal Under Section_____against ordersThe order 17.01.2019 passed in E.C. No. 01/2016 on the file of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kakinada. IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 To condone the delay of 240 days in representing the CMA SR No. 7524/2019. IA NO: 2 OF 2019 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 To grant stay of all further proceedings including the execution of the order 2 VS,J CMA No.565 of 2019 dated 17.01.2019 passed in E.C. No. 1/2016 on the file of the Commissioner of Employees Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kakinada, pending disposal of the main appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. V SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. K S MURTHY ASSOCIATES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J CMA No.565 of 2019 J U D G M E N T: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the appellant/opposite party, aggrieved by the Award dated 17.01.2019 in E.C.No.01 of 2016 by the Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation & Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kakinada. 2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The applicant was working under the opposite party, who is the owner of Sri Satya Veerabhadra Coconut Fiber (Peechu) Factory, Kajuluru, as a daily wage labourer for about two years, earning Rs.150/- per day. She was aged about 27 years. On 21.12.2012, while she was working on a coir machine, her left leg slipped into the belt of the machine, resulting in her left foot being crushed and loss of toes 2 to 5. She was immediately shifted to Government General Hospital (GGH), Kakinada, where the case was registered as MLC No.4079 dated 21.12.2012. She was treated as an inpatient for 15 days. Due to the said accident, she sustained permanent partial disability assessed at 25% and lost her employment, and she was bedridden for about six months. b) Despite repeated requests, the opposite party did not pay any compensation. The applicant further stated that she incurred an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards treatment at Global Hospital, Kakinada. A legal notice 4 VS,J CMA No.565 of 2019 dated 10.06.2013 was issued, but no reply or compensation was received. Hence, she filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.2,80,000/-. 4. The opposite party filed a counter contending that the applicant was only a casual worker and that the work was of a casual nature. It was further contended that the accident occurred due to the applicant’s own negligence, as she failed to follow the prescribed method of clearing the coir machine using a leaf stud and instead used her leg, resulting in the injury. It was also stated that an amount of more than Rs.50,000/- was spent towards her treatment, including Rs.25,000/- at Global Hospital, and that the disability was only 20% as per the certificate issued by GGH, Kakinada. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the applicant Sangadi Adi Lakshmi met with an accident on 21-12-2012 during the course of and out of her employment as daily wage worker in the Establishment of O.P. and sustained injuries in the accident? 2. If so, what is the percentage of Physical disability and consequent loss of earning capacity suffered by the applicant? 3. What is the age and wage of the applicant at the time of the accident? 4. What is the amount of compensation entitled for by the applicant? 5. Who are liable to pay compensation to the applicant? 5 VS,J CMA No.565 of 2019 6. On behalf of the applicant, she examined herself as A.W.1 and examined her brother as A.W.2, and marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9. On behalf of the opposite party, he examined himself as R.W.1. and marked Ex.B1. 7. After careful consideration of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, and the material facts available on record, the Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation & Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Guntur, passed an Award directed the opposite party to deposit an amount of Rs.1,80,142.00/- by way of a demand draft drawn on any scheduled bank in favour of the Joint Commissioner of Labour and Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation, Eluru within 30 days from the date of receipt of the award. 8. Aggrieved by the said Award, the present appeal is filed contending that there was no employer-employee relationship and that fastening liability on the opposite party. It is further contended that the applicant was only a casual worker and that the work was of a casual nature, wherein the women workers used to rotate the work among themselves on their own understanding, and the opposite party had no role in allotment of work. Therefore, fastening liability upon the appellant/opposite party is unjustified and unsustainable in law. 9. Head learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent. 6 VS,J CMA No.565 of 2019 10. On perusal of the impugned Award, it can be observed that the applicant examined herself as A.W.1 and her brother, who is a co-employee as A.W.2. The case of the applicant is that she had been working under the opposite party for about two years and sustained injuries during the course of her employment while operating the coir machine. Further, R.W.1 in his evidence, admitted that after the accident, the Inspector of Factories inspected the premises and initiated proceedings against him under Section 338 IPC for not providing proper safety measures, and that he paid a fine of Rs.40,000/- under Ex.B1. He further admitted that he did not file any documents to prove that he incurred medical expenses for the treatment of the applicant. 11. In view of the above, though the applicant was stated to be a casual worker, the evidence on record establishes that she had been working continuously for about two years on daily wages. It was further establishes that the accident occurred during the course of employment due to lack of proper safety measures at the workplace, and not on account of any negligence on the part of the applicant. 12. Accordingly, the Tribunal, on proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rightly awarded compensation of Rs.1,80,142/-, which cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary, or excessive. Hence, this Court finds no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7 VS,J CMA No.565 of 2019 12. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. However, the applicant is at liberty to withdraw the amount of Rs.1,80,142/- already deposited by the appellant/opposite party. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 11.03.2026 KGR