APHC010286122019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Between: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURENCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SRIKAKULAM 1. SUNKARI PYDIRAJU, W/O, LATE NAGESWARA RAO, HINDU , AGED ABOUT 28YEARS HOUSE WIFE , RESIDENT OF AMMIGARI, KONERUGATTU, BOBBILI MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DT., 2. SUNKARI SRAVANTHI, D/O, LATE NAGESWARA RAO, HINDU , . AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS. RESIDENT OF AMMIGARI, KONERUGATTU, BOBBILI MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DT., 3. SUNKARI MADHAVI, D/O, LATE NAGESWARA RAO, HINDU , AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS RESIDENT OF AMMIGARI, KONERUGATTU, BOBBILI MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DT., 4. SUNKARI SATTAMMA, W/O, LATE SATYAM HINDU AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDENT OF AMMIGARI, KONERUGATTU, BOBBILI MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DT., 5. RAWA SYAM SANKAR RAO, , OWNER. R/O,D NO, 9 MANDAL VIJAYANAGARAM DT., (2ND AND3RD RESPONDENTS ARE BEING MINORS REPRESENTS BY ITS NATURAL MOTHER AND GUARDIAN SMT. SUNKARI PYDIRAJU I.E., 1ST RESPONDNET) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 89 OF 2020 UNITED INDIA INSURENCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SRIKAKULAM ...APPELLANT AND SUNKARI PYDIRAJU, W/O, LATE NAGESWARA RAO, HINDU , AGED ABOUT 28YEARS HOUSE WIFE , RESIDENT OF AMMIGARI, KONERUGATTU, BOBBILI MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DT., SUNKARI SRAVANTHI, D/O, LATE NAGESWARA RAO, HINDU , . AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS. RESIDENT OF AMMIGARI, KONERUGATTU, BOBBILI MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DT., SUNKARI MADHAVI, D/O, LATE NAGESWARA RAO, HINDU , AGED 8 YEARS RESIDENT OF AMMIGARI, KONERUGATTU, BOBBILI MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DT., SUNKARI SATTAMMA, W/O, LATE SATYAM HINDU AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDENT OF AMMIGARI, KONERUGATTU, BOBBILI MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DT., RAWA SYAM SANKAR RAO, , S/O, RAJA RAO, HINDU,OCC. LORRY OWNER. R/O,D NO, 9-87, CITTLU STREET, SALUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL VIJAYANAGARAM DT., (2ND AND3RD RESPONDENTS ARE BEING MINORS REPRESENTS BY ITS NATURAL MOTHER AND GUARDIAN SMT. SUNKARI PYDIRAJU I.E., 1ST RESPONDNET) ...RES IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 2020 UNITED INDIA INSURENCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED ...APPELLANT SUNKARI PYDIRAJU, W/O, LATE NAGESWARA RAO, HINDU , AGED ABOUT 28YEARS HOUSE WIFE , RESIDENT OF AMMIGARI, KONERUGATTU, BOBBILI MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DT., SUNKARI SRAVANTHI, D/O, LATE NAGESWARA RAO, HINDU , . AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS. RESIDENT OF AMMIGARI, KONERUGATTU, BOBBILI MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DT., SUNKARI MADHAVI, D/O, LATE NAGESWARA RAO, HINDU , AGED 8 YEARS RESIDENT OF AMMIGARI, KONERUGATTU, SUNKARI SATTAMMA, W/O, LATE SATYAM HINDU AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDENT OF AMMIGARI, KONERUGATTU, BOBBILI S/O, RAJA RAO, HINDU,OCC. LORRY 87, CITTLU STREET, SALUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL VIJAYANAGARAM DT., (2ND AND3RD RESPONDENTS ARE BEING MINORS REPRESENTS BY ITS NATURAL MOTHER AND GUARDIAN SMT. SUNKARI PYDIRAJU I.E., 1ST RESPONDNET) ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. AMANCHARLA SATISH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G SAI NARAYANA RAO The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 89 OF 2020 JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Appellant/ Respondent No.2 under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, questioning the Order dated 02.02.2019 passed in W.C.No.1 of 2017 of Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Parvathipuram (for brevity “the Tribunal”). 2. The Appellant is the Opposite Party No.2/ Insurance Company; Respondents No. 1 to 4 are the Applicants and Respondent No.5 is the Opposite Party No.1 before the Tribunal. 3. The Respondents 1 to 4 herein filed Application under Section 22 of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- due to death of the Mr. Sunkari Nagaswara Rao (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) during the course of his employment as a driver at Respondent No.5. 4. On 09/10.08.2015 at about 2.45 a.m, when the deceased and Thaddi Nooka Raju were going with coal load from Visakhapatnam to Gurur on two lorries bearing Nos.AP 35 W 7499 and AP 35 W 2677 and when they reached near Bolod Jagatara Village, the back tyre of the lorry bearing No.AP35 W 2677 was punctured. The said Thaddi Nookaraju the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 35 W 2677 and the deceased are got down from lorries. While they were changing the backside tyre of the lorry, the deceased was standing at the side of Thaddi Nookaraju in order to help to change the tyre of the lorry. In the meantime, one unknown Tavera vehicle came and dashed against the said drivers, for which they were sustained grievous injures on head and chest and both the drivers died on the spot. The Gurur Police registered a case in Crime No. 414 of 2015 under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC. Therefore, the Applicants filed the claim petition. 5. On hearing both sides, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 8,82,666/- to the Respondents No.1 to 4/ Applicants with interest at 5 ½ % p.a. Assailing the same, the instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal came to be filed. 6. Heard Mr. Amancharla Satish Babu, learned counsel for the Appellant/ Respondent No.2 and Mr. G. Sai Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the Respondents/ Applicants. 7. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the Appellant/ Insurance Company would contend that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the accident occurred when the deceased was helping the other lorry driver to change the tyre. Therefore, the incident does not come under the provisions of Employees Compensation Act, 1923. Further, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the distinction between the “personal work of a workman and accident arising out of and in the course of employment”. It is further contended that the Applicants out to have approach the Motor Vehicle Tribunal instead of claiming compensation under Employees Compensation Act, 1923, since the death of deceased due to rash and negligence on the part of driver of tavera jeep, but the same was ignored by the Tribunal and awarded compensation, which is highly excessive and exorbitant. 8. Learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1 to 4 would contend that by taking into consideration of all parameters, the Tribunal awarded compensation and opposed to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 9. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company on the sole ground that the deceased was working as a driver under Opposite Party No.1/ Respondent No.5 herein. However, the accident took place while the deceased was assisting another lorry driver to change the back tyre of the lorry bearing No. AP 35 W 2677. Therefore, learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the said incident cannot be called as accident, while performing duties under Respondent No.5 herein, as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. 10. To prove the case of the Respondents No.1 to 4/ Claimants got examined PW-1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A12. As per Ex.A1 and A2 and as per the evidence of PW-1 the deceased worked as driver with the Opposite Party No.1 in the lorry bearing No. AP 35 W 7499 belongs to Respondent No.5. As per evidence of PW-1 as well as Ex.A1 and A2 and Inquest Report, it proves that the driver/ deceased died in the course of employment. Therefore, the Tribunal opined that the deceased was working under Respondent No.5 and he died during the course of employment is proved. Therefore, there is no whisper about the employer and employee relationship between Respondent No.5 and the deceased. 11. It is the case of the Insurance Company i.e Appellant herein that the deceased while assisting to change the tyre to another lorry, meanwhile one Tavera vehicle came and dashed against them, due to which both drivers sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. As such, the Insurance Company denying in paying any compensation is not proper in view of the fact that the act is a beneficial legislation. Once employee and employer relationship is established, the Insurance Company deemed to pay the compensation. Admittedly, the lorry has duly insured with the Appellant and the policy was in force at the time of accident. As such, the Tribunal rightly held that the Appellant/ Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. 12. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal taken into account the minimum wages as Rs.8,754/- per month (Rs.5,138/- + VDA 3,616/-) as per Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The deceased was aged 33 years at the time of accident. Therefore, taking into consideration of wage and age of the deceased, the amount of compensation is fixed as per clause (A) of Sub Section(1) of Section 4 of the Employees Compensation Act Rs. 8,82,666/- (Age factor x50% x wages = 201.66 x 50/100 x 8754). Therefore, this Court finds that the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is not on higher side. Hence, no interference is required. 13. As far as fixing the liability is concerned, Ex.B1 is the Insurance Policy. The Respondent No.5/ Opposite Party No.1 has obtained insurance policy to the vehicle bearing No. AP 35 W 7499 from the Appellant and it was in force at the time of accident. Therefore, the Respondent No.5 being the employer to the deceased driver and the Appellant/ Opposite Party No.2 is being the insurance company is jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Applicants/ Respondents No. 1 to 4. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court opined that the Award passed by the Tribunal is on correct lines and warrants no interference. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 25.02.2026 KK THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 89 OF 2020 25.02.2026 KK