1 CMA NO. 274 OF 2019 VS,J. APHC010229632019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 274/2019 Between: 1. THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORUY, HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 2ND FLOOR, D.NO.15/181, KAVITHA KRISHNA ANNEX, SUBEDARPET ROAD, NEAR KANAKA MAHAL CIRCLE, NELLORE. ...APPELLANT AND 1. POLAVARAPU NAGA MALLESWARI, W/O SESHU KUMAR, AGEDA BOUT 21 YEARS, D.NO. 46-148-928, RAJAKA BY CASTE SARALA DEVI COLONY, PERNAMITTA (VILLAGE), SANTHA NUTHALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DIST. 2. STAR SEA FOODS, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, PRABHU NAIDU, D.NO. 1-121-B, N.T.R. COLONY, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DIST., (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE AP 27TX-5016.) ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GUDI SRINIVASU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. AKHILA NAIDU PANCHADI The Court made the following: 2 CMA NO. 274 OF 2019 VS,J. THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 274/2019 J U D G M E N T: 1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short CMA) has been preferred by the Appellant/Applicant being aggrieved by the Order dated 30.04.2019 in E.C case No.1 of 2016 passed by the Commissioner for Employees‟ Compensation Act, 1923 –cum- Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ongole, wherein the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the Applicant. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal i.e., Appellant as Applicant and Respondents as Respondents. 2. Applicant – Smt. Polavarapu Naga Malleswari being wife of Polavarapu Seshu Kumar has filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from opposite parties No.1 and 2 for the death of P.Seshu Kumar (herein after referred to as the „deceased‟) while he was working as driver of a lorry bearing No.AP-27-TX-5016, together with interest at 18% p.a from the date of death of the deceased till the date of realization and for costs. 3. The brief facts of the claim application of the applicant before the Tribunal are that –The applicant is the wife of the deceased Polavarapu Seshu Kumar. Her husband was employed as a driver in the lorry bearing No. AP 27 TX 5016 of the 1st opposite party and the 1st opposite party insured the lorry with the 3 CMA NO. 274 OF 2019 VS,J. 2nd opposite party and the policy was in force for the period from 30.01.2015 to 29.01.2016. i. On 04.07.2015 the 1st opposite party instructed the driver to go to Thummalapenta Village, Kavali to load fish in the lorry and transport the same to Alangodu, Kerala State, unload the fish and collect money from the purchaser of the fish. As instructed, on 04.07.2015 the deceased driver took the lorry to Thummalapenta from Ongole, loaded fish, started at 7-00 P.M, from Thummalapenta and reached Alangodu on 05.07.2015 at 9-00 P.M. As it is late in the night, the fishes were unloaded in the morning of 06.07.2015 and an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees one lakh and thirty thousand only) was received by the deceased driver and on the morning of 07.07.2015 the deceased driver started with the money along with the Cleaner Avinash to reach Ongole. The Cleaner Avinash with an evil idea of robbing money out of conspiracy with some people, who way laid near Erpedu, killed the driver Seshu Kumar and robbed of Rs.1,30,000/-. The Naidupet Police registered a case in Cr.No.221/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. ii. The monthly salary of the deceased driver paid by the 1st opposite party was Rs.15000/- per month and the deceased driver was aged 31 years by the time of his death. The deceased driver died in the course of employment under 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party being the insured of the vehicle, both 4 CMA NO. 274 OF 2019 VS,J. are liable to pay compensation under Employees‟ Compensation Act, 1923. Hence, both 1st and 2nd opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount to the applicant, along with interest at 18% p.a, from the date of death of the deceased driver till the date of realization and for costs. 4. 1st opposite party filed counter contending that the application is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed. This opposite party insured the vehicle with the 2nd opposite party, policy valid from 30.01.2015. This opposite party engaged Chapala Vijaya Kumar, S/o Sreenu as driver to his vehicle bearing No. AP 27 TX 5016 on 04.07.2015 and the said driver was on duty as a driver of his vehicle and the driver was on duty up-to 18.07.2015. The deceased was not engaged as a driver on 04.07.2017 or any other day. Chapala Vijaya Kumar is the permanent driver of this opposite party. So this opposite party is not liable to pay compensation to the applicant and this application is liable to be dismissed. Even otherwise, it is presumed that the deceased is an employee/workman as a driver of this opposite party vehicle, as this opposite party insured his vehicle with the 2nd opposite party, 2nd opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the applicant. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the application, with costs of this opposite party. 5. 2nd opposite party filed counter denying the averments in the claim application and contended that the application is not maintainable either on facts 5 CMA NO. 274 OF 2019 VS,J. or in Law against this opposite party. The person driving the vehicle has "no relation in force” as on the date of accident to drive the vehicle. The alleged driver of the vehicle was murdered by the Cleaner of the vehicle for money. So the policy does not cover the risk for "Murder". The reason for the incident was the alleged driver was murdered and there is no fault on the side of the driver of the lorry in the said incident. Thus this 2nd opposite party company is not liable to indemnify any such acts caused under Vis-major. The driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 27 TX 5016 was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of incident, hence the 1st opposite party is alone liable to pay compensation amount to the applicant. Further, as per Section 134(c) of M.V Act, 1988, it is mandatory duty of the insured /1st opposite party to furnish the particulars of policy, place of accident, particulars of the injured and the name of the driver and particulars of the driving license, but the insured/1st opposite party has not complied with the statutory demands. Hence, this opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation amount and the case is liable to be dismissed against this opposite party. As per Section 158 (6) of M.V. Act, 1988, it is a mandatory duty of the concerned Police Station to forward all the relevant documents to the concerned Insurer within 30 days from the date of receipt of information, but the Police Station failed to forward the documents and not complied with the statutory demand. The applicant is not entitled to claim any interest and the applicant put to strict proof with documentary evidence regarding the age of 31 6 CMA NO. 274 OF 2019 VS,J. years and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month as a driver. This Opposite Party denies that the police of Naidupet Police Station registered a case in Cr.No. 221/2015 under Sec. 302 and 201 of I.P.C., and denied that the deceased received injuries all over the body and the hospitalization and treatment as alleged and also denied that the applicant was the sole legal heir and dependent of the deceased. There is no proof to show that the deceased was an employee working under the control of the 1st opposite party. As per pleadings of the 1st opposite party, the deceased herein was not employed by him. So, there is no employee and employer relationship between the 1st opposite party and the deceased. Hence, this application is not maintainable. The alleged murder has taken place when the lorry bearing No. AP 27 TX 5016 was stationed and the present claim application is liable to be dismissed and this opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the applicant. Hence, prayed to dismiss the application against this 2nd opposite party, with cost. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the tribunal framed the following points for inquiry:- 1) Whether the applicant is entitled for compensation as claimed by the applicant? 2) Who are liable to pay compensation amount? 3) If so, to what relief the applicant is entitled to? 7 CMA NO. 274 OF 2019 VS,J. 7. To prove the case of the applicant, she herself examined as P.W.1 and one Sri Kunchala Srinivasa Rao examined as P.W.2 and got marked Ex.A.1 – family members certificate dated 18.12.2025 issued by the Thasildar, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District, Ex.A.2 – true copy of F.I.R in Cr.No.221 of 2015 of Naidupet police station, S.P.S.R Nellore District, dated 08.07.2015, Ex.A.3 – true copy of inquest report dated 08.07.2015, Ex.A.4 – true copy of mahazarnama of scene of offence dated 14.l07.2015 where the driver P.Seshu Kumar was murdered, Ex.A.5 – true copy of charge sheet dated 31.10.2015 filed by the Inspector of Police Naidupet, before the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Naidupet, Ex.A.6 – true copy of remand report dated 15.07.2015, Ex.A.7 – true copy of post mortem report dated 10.07.2015 issued by the Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Naidupet. 1st opposite party – Sri Naidu Prabhu got examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked on his behalf. On behalf of the 2nd opposite party – Sri P.V.Siva Kumar, Manager, Claims, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, Vijayawada got examined as R.W.2 and marked copy of policy as Ex.B.1. 8. Upon hearing learned Counsel for applicant as well as opposite parties, and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the tribunal awarded Rs.9,20,301/- towards compensation, Rs.1,841/- 8 CMA NO. 274 OF 2019 VS,J. towards costs of Court fee stamps and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the application in total Rs.9,23,142/-, directing opposite parties No.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay the compensation amount to the applicant before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ongole by way of Demand Draft drawn in favour of “Commissioner for Workmen‟s Compensation Act, 1923, Guntur Region, Guntur, within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of order. In case of failure to comply the order, interest at the rate of 9% p.a shall be levied on the awarded amount, from the date of accident to till realization. 9. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the 2nd opposite party – Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal on the grounds that the Commissioner failed to appreciate the evidence of 1st opposite party – R.W.1 that he has not appointed the deceased as a driver on the lorry bearing No.AP27 TX 5016 and one Chapala Vijaya Kunar was actual driver and also failed to see that there was no employer and employee relationship between 1st opposite party and the deceased. The commissioner failed to appreciate that the deceased was not died out of and in the course of employment as a driver but he was murdered and the policy does not cover the risk of the murder. The Commissioner ought to have seen that the intention of the cleaner to kill the deceased was as the deceased used to manhandle and scold indiscriminately and due to that reason and also to rob the money the cleaner of the vehicle 9 CMA NO. 274 OF 2019 VS,J. murdered the deceased. Thus granting a sum of Rs.9,23,142/- as compensation is highly excessive. 10. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as respondents and perused the material available on record. 11. Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that to claim compensation, the applicant have to prove that - 1) employee – employer relationship, 2) there was an accident, and 3) the accident must have been occurred in the course of employment. In the present case R.W.1 who is owner of lorry clearly deposed that he did not appoint the deceased as a driver and that one Chapala Vijaya Kumar was driver and as such the employee and employer relationship not proved by the claimant. He further argued that as per Ex.A.5 – charge sheet the reason for the murder of deceased by the cleaner is that the deceased manhandled the cleaner indiscriminately and as such robbed the money in the possession of the deceased. So, the death of the deceased is not an accident due to his negligence in the course of his employment. Hence, the claimant is not entitled to compensation. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner. 12. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows:- 10 CMA NO. 274 OF 2019 VS,J. Whether the deceased comes under the definition of Workman under Section 2(n)(i)(c) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 and entitled for compensation as awarded by the Tribunal? 13. On a perusal of the Order passed by the Commissioner, wherein the tribunal at page No.6 stated that - "ACCIDENT" is not defined in the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. But the expression "ACCIDENT" means an unintended and untoward mishap which is not expected or designed. The Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 is a piece of social security legislation, and it is generally accepted that various provisions of the Act ought to receive a liberal interpretation. Since it is welfare legislation, made for the interests of poor workmen, in the case of any provision capable of more than one interpretation that which is more favorable to the workman should be adopted. Therefore, it cannot be allowed to be argued that the death due to head injury sustained by the workman has occurred in an 'incident' and not in 'accident'. An "incident" which is unforeseen is an accident. The term accident means some unexpected and unforeseen event or unlooked mischief. If the injury or death from the point of view of the workman who suffers or dies, is unexpected or un-designed on his part, then that injury would be, by an accident. When the applicants claiming compensation, they have to prove that (1) Employee-employer relationship (2) there was an accident, and (3) the accident must have been occurred in the course of employment. 11 CMA NO. 274 OF 2019 VS,J. 14. As per the Ex.P5-Charge Sheet filed by the Inspector of Police, Naidupet before the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Naidupet and Ex.A6- Remand Report, it is revealed that the 1st opposite party was shown as LW-8 to speak that the deceased was working in his lorry, sending his lorry to Kerala. Sri H.V. Nissan, s/o Abdul Vaheed, Bismi Fish Agency, Alamcode, Kerala State was shown as LW-12 to speak that he is doing business with LW-8/1st opposite party and the deceased brought the load of fish to his Company on 06.07.2015, he gave cash of Rs.1,33,000/- to the deceased driver and the deceased driver returned with empty load on 07.07.2015. Though the 1st opposite party denied the employment of the deceased P.Seshu Kumar as a driver in his lorry bearing No. AP 27 TX 5016, as per the Investigation Report of the 2nd opposite party and Ex.A5-the Charge Sheet filed by the Inspector of Police, Naidupet and Ex.A6- Remand Report, it is revealed that the deceased worked as a driver in the lorry bearing No. AP 27 TX 5016 of the 1st opposite party and he died on 08.07.2015 at about 1.00 A.M due to blow with an Iron Rod on his head. The 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties have not raised any objections on the Investigation Report i.e., Ex.P5-Charge sheet and Ex.P6-Remand Report. Therefore, the Commissioner relying on the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7 and the report of the Investigator filed by the 2nd opposite party, held that the deceased driver Polavarapu Seshu Kumar worked as driver in the Lorry bearing No. AP 27 TX 5016 of the 1st opposite party and died during the course of the employment as 12 CMA NO. 274 OF 2019 VS,J. driver in the Lorry bearing No. AP 27 TX 5016 of the 1st opposite party and came to the opinion that the death of the deceased was due to an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment and therefore, the applicant is entitled for compensation amount. 15. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 also relied on a Judgment in RITA DEVI v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD, SCC ONLINE (2000) 5 SCC 113 wherein at paragraphs No.14 to 18 of the judgment it was held as follows:- 14. Applying the principles laid down in the above cases to the facts of the case in hand, we find that the deceased, a driver of the autorickshaw, was dutybound to have accepted the demand of fare-paying passengers to transport them to the place of their destination. During the course of this duty, if the passengers had decided to commit an act of felony of stealing the autorickshaw and in the course of achieving the said object of stealing the autorickshaw, they had to eliminate the driver of the autorickshaw then it cannot but be said that the death so caused to the driver of the autorickshaw was an accidental murder. The stealing of the autorickshaw was the object of the felony and the murder that was caused in the said process of stealing the autorickshaw is only incidental to the act of stealing of the autorickshaw. Therefore, it has to be said that on the facts and circumstances of this case the death of the deceased (Dasarath Singh) was caused accidentally in the process of committing theft of the autorickshaw. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents contended before us that since the Motor Vehicles Act has not defined the word “death” and the legal interpretations relied upon by us are with reference to the definition of the word “death” in the Workmen's Compensation Act the same will not be applicable while interpreting the word “death” in the Motor Vehicles Act because according to her, the objects of the two Acts are entirely different. She also contends that on the facts of this case no proximity could be presumed between the murder of the driver and the stealing of the 13 CMA NO. 274 OF 2019 VS,J. autorickshaw. We are unable to accept this contention advanced on behalf of the respondents. We do not see how the object of the two Acts, namely, the Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act are in any way different. In our opinion, the relevant object of both the Acts is to provide compensation to the victims of accidents. The only difference between the two enactments is that so far as the Workmen's Compensation Act is concerned, it is confined to workmen as defined under that Act while the relief provided under Chapter X to XII of the Motor Vehicles Act is available to all the victims of accidents involving a motor vehicle. In this conclusion of ours we are supported by Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act as per which provision, it is open to the claimants either to proceed to claim compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act or under the Motor Vehicles Act. A perusal of the objects of the two enactments clearly establishes that both the enactments are beneficial enactments operating in the same field, hence the judicially accepted interpretation of the word “death” in the Workmen's Compensation Act is, in our opinion, applicable to the interpretation of the word “death” in the Motor Vehicles Act also. 16. In the case of Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More [(1991) 3 SCC 530 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 865] this Court while pronouncing on the interpretation of Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 held as follows : (SCC p. 532, para 12) “… Section 92-A was in the nature of a beneficial legislation enacted with a view to confer the benefit of expeditious payment of a limited amount by way of compensation to the victims of an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle on the basis of no-fault liability. In the matter of interpretation of a beneficial legislation the approach of the courts is to adopt a construction which advances the beneficent purpose underlying the enactment in preference to a construction which tends to defeat that purpose.” 17. In that case in regard to the contention of proximity between the accident and the explosion that took place this Court held : (SCC pp. 549- 50, para 36) “36. This would show that as compared to the expression „caused by‟, the expression „arising out of‟ has a wider connotation. The expression „caused by‟ was used in Sections 95(1)(b)(i) and (ii) and 96(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. In Section 92-A, Parliament, however, chose to use the expression „arising out of‟ which indicates that for the purpose of awarding 14 CMA NO. 274 OF 2019 VS,J. compensation under Section 92-A, the causal relationship between the use of the motor vehicle and the accident resulting in death or permanent disablement is not required to be direct and proximate and it can be less immediate. This would imply that accident should be connected with the use of the motor vehicle but the said connection need not be direct and immediate. This construction of the expression „arising out of the use of a motor vehicle‟ in Section 92-A enlarges the field of protection made available to the victims of an accident and is in consonance with the beneficial object underlying the enactment.” 18. In the instant case, as we have noticed the facts, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the murder of the deceased (Dasarath Singh) was due to an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle. Therefore, the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled for compensation as claimed by them and the High Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion that the death of Dasarath Singh was not caused by an accident involving the use of motor vehicle. In the present case also the deceased was murdered during the course of his employment while he was carrying an amount of Rs.1,33,000/- in the lorry as a driver. The above referred judgment facts are aptly applicable to the present case facts. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation. 16. As per driving license of the deceased date of birth was mentioned as 08.01.1983, as on the date of accident the deceased was aged 32 years. With regard to wages of the deceased, as 1st and 2nd opposite parties denied the employment of deceased and the claimant not produced any proof, the tribunal considered the minimum wages fixed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to the workers working in Private Motor Transport through G.O.Ms.No.90, Labour, Employment, Training and Factories (Lab-II) Department, dated 29.08.2007 and 15 CMA NO. 274 OF 2019 VS,J. fixed Rs.9,029-20 per month as wage as on the date of death of the deceased i.e., 08.07.2015 for computation of compensation. As per Schedule – VI under Section 4 of the Employees‟ Compensation Act, 1923, the relevant factor for the age of 32 years is 203.85, thus an amount of Rs.9,20,301/- awarded towards compensation to the claimant apart from Rs.1,841/- towards costs of Court Fee stamps and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of application, in total Rs.9,23,142/-, which is well reasoned and needs no interference. Hence, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Commissioner and there is no need to interfere with the said order. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 17. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA KS Dated 26.02.2026. 16 CMA NO. 274 OF 2019 VS,J. 181 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 274/2019 DATED 26.02.2026 KS