APHC010293322019 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. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP BY ITS ASST. MANAGER, MOTOR TP CLAIMS HUB GARLAPATI COMPLEX, ALL BAIG STREET H.NO.27 002. 1. TANNERU RAMADEVI, W/O. SRINIVAS RAO AGED OCC- HOUSE-WIFE 2. TANNERU SRINIVAS RAO, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 45 YRS, OCC CHILLAKALLU(V) JAGGAIAHPET MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. M/S SRI BHAVANI STONE CRUSHER, REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. K V AP16 TY 0258 JAGGALAHPET (V) AND MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. V VEERABHADRA CHARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. CHALLA AJAY KUMAR The Court made the following: 1 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: 451 OF 2019 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP BY ITS ASST. MANAGER, MOTOR TP CLAIMS HUB GARLAPATI COMPLEX, ALL BAIG STREET H.NO.27-12-76 GOVEMORPET VIJAYAWADA ...APPELLANT AND TANNERU RAMADEVI, W/O. SRINIVAS RAO AGED ABOUT 41 YRS, WIFE TANNERU SRINIVAS RAO, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 45 YRS, OCC- COOLI BOTH 1 AND 2 ARE R/O. CHILLAKALLU(V) JAGGAIAHPET MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. M/S SRI BHAVANI STONE CRUSHER, REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. K VENKATESWARA RAO OWNER OF LORRY NO. AP16 TY 0258 JAGGALAHPET (V) AND MANDAL, KRISHNA ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: V VEERABHADRA CHARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): CHALLA AJAY KUMAR The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 2019 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP BY ITS ASST. MANAGER, MOTOR TP CLAIMS HUB GARLAPATI COMPLEX, ALL 76 GOVEMORPET VIJAYAWADA-520 ...APPELLANT ABOUT 41 YRS, TANNERU SRINIVAS RAO, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO AGED COOLI BOTH 1 AND 2 ARE R/O. CHILLAKALLU(V) JAGGAIAHPET MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. M/S SRI BHAVANI STONE CRUSHER, REP BY ITS MANAGING ENKATESWARA RAO OWNER OF LORRY NO. AP16 TY 0258 JAGGALAHPET (V) AND MANDAL, KRISHNA ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 451 OF 2019 JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, questioning the Order dated 10.03.2019 passed in E.C.No.13 of 2013 of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada (for brevity “the Tribunal”). 2. The Appellant is the Opposite Party No.2/ Insurance Company; Respondents No. 1 and 2 are the Applicants and Respondent No.3 is the Opposite Party No.1 before the Tribunal. 3. The Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed Application under Section 22 of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation due to death of the Mr. Tanneru Sai Krishna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) during the course of his employment. The Respondents 1 and 2/ Applicants are the mother and father of the deceased. 4. On 12.12.2011 the deceased as a cleaner under the employment of Opposite Party No.1, at about 6.30 hrs, the lorry reached near stone crusher in Chillakallu. At that time, the lorry has stopped for loading of fly ash, as the conveyor belt was moving slowly the deceased went near the belt to make it move faster so that the lorry get loaded quickly. During that process, the deceased fell on the belt and his head crushed into the conveyor belt. As a result, the deceased sustained bleeding injuries to his head and died on the 3 spot. The Chillakallu Police registered a case in Crime No. 209 of 2011 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Hence the claim petition. 5. On hearing both sides, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 5,00,599/- to the Respondents No.1 and 2/ Applicants. Assailing the same, the instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal came to be filed. 6. Heard Mr. V.Veerabhadra Chary, learned counsel for the Appellant/ Respondent No.2 and Mr.Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondents/ Applicants. 7. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the Appellant/ Insurance Company would contend that the Tribunal ignoring the deceased’s willful disobedience and inspite of caution of his immediate responsible person/ employer fell on the conveyor belt. The Tribunal also failed to appreciate whether the deceased employment demanded him to the acts, which he was doing at the material point of incident, or such acts or omissions unrelated to his nature of employment to cover the employment injury-giving rise to his death and awarded compensation to the Applicants, which is highly excessive and exorbitant. 8. Learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1 and 2 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 died in an accident that 4 occurred on 12.12.2011, while the deceased was working as a cleaner. The lorry stopped for loading of fly ash near the crusher, as the conveyor belt was moving slowly; the deceased went there to make it move faster. During that process his head was crushed in the conveyor belt and died on the spot. As such, the Insurance Company is not liable for payment of any compensation in the present case for his willful default. 10. To prove the case of the Respondents No.1 and 2/ Claimants got examined AW-1, who is father of the deceased and got marked Ex.A1 to A5. As per Ex.A5 final report would show that the deceased was the cleaner of the lorry bearing No. AP 16 TY 0258 and he died in an accident that occurred on 12.12.2011 during the course of employment under Opposite party No.1 i.e Respondent No.3 herein. Therefore, there is relationship employer and employee relationship between the Respondent No.3 and the deceased. 11. It is the case of the Insurance Company i.e Appellant herein that the deceased violated the instructions of his superiors and he went near the conveyor belt 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 is deemed to pay the compensation. Admittedly, the lorry is 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. 5 12. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal taken into account the minimum wages as Rs. 4,456.25 per month (Rs. 2,645/- + VDA 1811.25) as per Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The deceased was aged 20 years at the time of accident. Therefore, taking into consideration of wageand 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. 4,99,100/- (Rs. 4,456.25 x 50% x 224.00). Therefore, this Court finds the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is not on higher side. Hence, no interference is required. 13. So far as fixing the liability is concerned, the lorry is duly insured with Appellant and the Policy was in force as on the date of accident, as such, the Tribunal held that Appellant and Respondent No.3 herein jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Respondents No.1 and 2 herein, which is rightly considered by the learned Commissioner. 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 6 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 451 OF 2019 25.02.2026 KK