APHC011023872017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1368/2017 Between: 1. THE MANAGER BAJAJ, M/S BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 3RD FLOOR, PEEJAY PLAZA, VIP ROAD, CBM COMPOUND, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...APPELLANT AND 1. RETTAPALLI APPALANARASA, S/O GURAYYA, RESIDING AT D.NO.2-27, KAPULUPPADA, BHEEMUNIPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. MR. RETTAPALLI APPALA RAMANA, S/O APPALANARASA, RESIDING AT D.NO.2-27, KAPULUPPADA, BHEEMUNIPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. MR. RETAPALLI GURUNATH, S/O APPALANARASA, RESIDING AT D.NO.2-27, KAPULUPPADA, BHEEMUNIPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. SMT. MAMIDI BANGARU LAKSHMI, W/O RAVI, RESIDING AT D.NO.2-27, KAPULUPPADA, BHEEMUNIPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. SREE GAYATRI CONSTRUCTIONS, REPRESENED BY ITS M.D., SRI K.V.RAMA RAO, FLAT NO.08, ISWARYA RESIDENCY. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 VS,J CMA.No.1368 of 2017 Appeal against orders may be pleased to set-aside the order dated 26.10.2017 passed in WC. Case No.03 of 2015 before the Commissioner for Employees Compensation Act, 1923 and the Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Circle-I, at Door No.45-40-45/1, Upstairs of Andhra Bank, Akkayyalem Main Road, Visakhapatnam and pleased to pass such other orders. IA NO: 1 OF 2017 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 stay all further proceedings including execution of order dated 26.10.2017 passed in WC case No.03/2015 before the Commissioner for Employees Compensation Act 1923 and the Asst. Commissioner of Labour Circle-I at Door No.45-40-45/1 upstairs of Andhra Bank, Akkayyalem Main Road Visakhapatnam and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. T V SRI DEVI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G VENKATA SUBBA RAJU The Court made the following: 3 VS,J CMA.No.1368 of 2017 JUDGMENT: The Insurance Company filed the present appeal against the order and decree 26.10.2017 in W.C.No.03 of 2015 on the file of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation Act 1923 and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle-I at Door No.45-40-45/1, upstairs of Andhra Bank, Akkayyalem Main Road, Visakhapatnam, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.5,59,321/- (Rupees Five lakhs Fifty Nine thousand Three Hundred and Twenty One only) to the petitioners/respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein, as against the claim of Rs.6,77,760/-, on account of the death of the deceased Rettapalli Pentamma in a motor accident that occurred on 20.12.2013. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 22 of the Employee’s Compensation Act 1923, the case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: The claim application filed by the applicants stating that 1st applicant is the husband, 2nd and 3rd applicants are the sons and 4th applicant is the daughter of the deceased Smt. Rettapalli Pentamma, who died out of and in the course of employment, while working under 1st OP as a labour. The applicants stated that the deceased had worked under the OP’s employment for two years and on one day 20.12.2013 while she was working at the 4 VS,J CMA.No.1368 of 2017 construction site OP-I i.e., Sree Gayatri Constructions, Paradesipalem while at about 10.30 hrs lifted a cement bag and proceeded to up-stair of the building suddenly dashed one of the steps and fell down on the steps and the cement bag fell on her body. As a result, the deceased sustained severe injuries and then she was shifted to KGH, Visakhapatnam for better treatment where she was treated as in-patient. The applicants stated that the deceased was continuously under the treatment due to multiple injuries and at last she was died on 23.02.2014 in the KGH, Visakhapatnam. The applicants further stated that despite of the request made by the applicants the OP-I did not turned up to pay the employees compensation payable to them and hence filed this claim application estimating value of relief @ Rs.6,77,760/- along with the interest @ 18% from the date of accident till the realization. As the OP-I insured with the insurer/OP-II both the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 04. Before the Tribunal, notices were sent to both parties and OP-I remained ex parte. 05. The opposite party No.2 filed counter denying all the contentions raised by the applicants. The OP-II stated that the applicants have produce the documentary proof of which they intend to rely on and prayed to dismiss the application filed by the applicants. 06. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 5 VS,J CMA.No.1368 of 2017 “1. Whether there exists employer-employee relationship between OP-I and the deceased? 2. Whether the applicants are entitled the employees compensation, if so, what is the quantum of compensation payable and who are liable to pay?” 07. On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the opposite party No.II, Rw.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked. 08. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal direct the opposite party Nos.I and II are jointly and severally to pay the compensation amount Rs.5,59,321/- drawn by way of demand draft in favour of ‘Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Visakhapatnam’. Despite the knowledge about the accident the OP-I failed to take steps for payment of compensation in respect of the deceased worker it is just expedient to impose interest on the OP-I/Gayatri Constructions, Visakhapatnam @ 12% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of accident till the realization. If the OP-I & OP-II failed to deposit the quantum of compensation amount as awarded above within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, both the OPs are liable to pay 50% penalty under Section 4(A)(3)(b) in addition to the above award of compensation & interest jointly and severally. 09. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No.2/opposite party No.2 preferred this appeal contending that the Court below ought to have seen that 6 VS,J CMA.No.1368 of 2017 the deceased is not workman as defined under Workmen Compensation Act and no award can be passed under the said Act. The Court below ought to have seen that as per the terms and conditions of policy, the Company shall not be liable under the policy in respect of the insured’s liability to employees of contractors to the insured. There is no privity of contract between deceased and the appellant and the deceased is stranger to the policy and therefore no award or decree can be passed against appellant. The appellant issued policy in the name of Gayatri Constructions represented by K.V.Rama Rao vide policy bearing No.OG-14-1804-2801-00000177 for the period valid from 20.11.2013 subject to certain conditions and exceptions and as per the terms and conditions of policy the insured did not intimate the appellant about accident and thereby violated the terms and conditions of workman compensation policy and the appellant is not liable to pay compensation for breach of policy conditions. The Court below erred in fixing liability to pay compensation against appellant along with respondent No.5. It is, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 7 VS,J CMA.No.1368 of 2017 POINT: 12. To prove that the deceased was met with an accident on 20.12.2013 while on duty at the worksite of Gayatri Constructions, paradesipalem, Visakhapatnam and died on 23.02.2014, the applicants relied upon the evidence of AW2-eyewitness of the accident and Ex.A1(copy of FIR). A perusal of the record reveals that AW2 has also confirmed in his chief examination that the deceased was a worker engaged by the OP-I. There was no rebuttal evidence adduced by the OP-I to deny the version of the applicants. The evidence of AW2 coupled with Ex.A1 attested copy of FIR clearly proves that the deceased was met with an accident on 20.12.2013 while on duty at the above construction site. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident occurred in the construction site and the deceased succumbed to death later because of the said accident and also rightly held that there exists employer-employee relationship between the OP-I and the deceased. 13. Since the Insurance Policy obtained by the Insured/OP-I was in force at the time of accident and as there exists employer-employee relationship between the OP-I and the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly held that both OP-I/Insured and OP-II/Insurer are liable to pay the amount of compensation. 14. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, since no documentary proof filed to substantiate his income, the Tribunal fixed the wages of the deceased as per minimum wages fixed vide G.O.Ms.No.85 8 VS,J CMA.No.1368 of 2017 LET&F (Lab-II) Dept., dated 22.09.2007 for the scheduled employment “Construction or Maintenances of Roads and Building Operations” @ Rs.6,602/- per month. As the age of the deceased was 45 years as on the date of accident, the Tribunal below rightly calculated the compensation amount of Rs.5,59,321/- by taking age, wages and the relevant age factor (Rs.6,602/- x 50/100 x 169.44). In addition to the above, the Tribunal has rightly imposed interest on OP-I/Gayatri Constructions, Visakhapatnam @ 12% per annum and also rightly made both the OP-I and OP-II are liable to pay 50% penalty under section 4(A)(3)(b) in addition to the above award of compensation & interest jointly and severally. In view of the above reasons, this Court finds no error in the said finding of the Tribunal, warranting interference with the impugned award. 15. In the result, Civil Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 04.02.2026 PBS