1 APHC010901242017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1176/2017 Between: 1. THE MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., D NO.4-13-25, 1ST FLOOR, OPP. HARIHARAMAHAL, KORETIPADU, GUNTUR. ...APPELLANT AND 1. PATAN MEERABI, W/O LATE NAGUL MEERA, R/O DIDUGUBAVI CENTER, OLD MANGALAGIRI, MANGALGIRI TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. V AJAY KUMAR, S/O. VEERASWAMY, OWNER OF LORRY NO.AP-07 TT-8499, R/O 4-158, ETUKUR POST, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. V RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. U KANAKA RAJU 2. The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1176/2017 J U D G M E N T: 1. The present Appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the Order passed by the Commissioner of Employees Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tenali, dated 26.04.2017 in W.C.No.27 of 2012. 2. Brief facts of the case are that:- i. A Claim Petition was filed by the applicants stating that one Patan Nagul Meera was working as Driver under Opposite Party (O.P.) No.1 on his Lorry bearing Registration No. AP07 TT 8499 and the Opposite Party (O.P.) No.2 is the Insurer for that vehicle and he received personal injuries in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment on 14.09.2011 and died on 21.09.2011 while undergoing treatment at Gunturu Hospital. The deceased was aged about 36 years and was getting wages of Rs.6,000/- per month besides batta of Rs.250/- per day by the time of his death. ii. O.P.No.1 who is the Owner of the Lorry remained ex-parte in the case. iii. O.P.2 filed his Counter by denying most of the averments made in the Petition filed by the applicants stating that the applicants are put to strict proof of the same with the authenticated documentary evidence. The said Lorry was not insured with O.P.No.2 by the date of accident, the amount claimed as compensation is highly excessive and without any basis, the deceased slept over the load on the lorry and fell down due to his negligence only and hence prayed to dismiss the petition with costs against O.P.No.2. 3 iv. Basing on the said pleadings, the Court below framed the following issues. 1) Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of the Act and he died due to personal injuries he received in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment? Or not, under Opposite party -1 as H.V Driver? 2) Amount of compensation payable? To the applicants. 3) Who are liable to pay the compensation? v. On behalf of the Applicants, wife to the deceased was examined as A.W.1, Owner of the Lorry was examined as A.W.2 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.12 documents were marked. vi. One V.Umadevi was examined as R.W.1 on behalf of opposite party No.2 and Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 documents were marked. vii. The Court below duly considering the evidence of R.W.1 who categorically deposed that by the time of accident the Insurance Policy was in force and on the date of accident the deceased was working as the Driver of Lorry of O.P.No.1 and the cause of death was due to fall from the top of the lorry and also considering the fact that it is clearly mentioned about the employment, accident, injuries and death etc., of the deceased in the F.I.R., inquest report and evidence of A.W.2 etc., the claimants proved their case beyond reasonable doubt and held that the O.P.No‟s.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.5,91,621/- to the claimants as against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/-. 3. Challenging this, the present Appeal is preferred by the O.P.No.2 i.e., the Insurance Company on the ground that the Commissioner failed to consider that in the final report filed by the police before the concerned Criminal Court, which was marked as Ex.B.2, it was clearly mentioned that basing on the statement of the Cleaner who was examined as L.W.5 “that on 14.11.2011 night the lorry reached to the check-post of Purushothampuram wherein the deceased 4 asked the Cleaner to check the lorry papers and he went to the top of the lorry and slept there. At about 23 hours, he fell down from the lorry, sustained injury on head and accordingly died on 21.09.2011 while undergoing treatment in Gunturu Hospital”. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has argued that the accident was occurred because of the negligence of the deceased, as such, no liability can be fixed as against the Insurance Company. 5. This Court relief on the Judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in MST. Param Pal Singh through Father … Appellant Versus national Insurance Co. & Anr… Respondents, Civil Appeal No.9084 of 2012 @ SLP(C) No.16063 of 2007, decided on 14.12.2012, wherein at paragraphs No.27 and 28 it was held as follows:- “27. Applying the various principles laid down in the above decisions to the facts of this case, we can validly conclude that there was CAUSAL CONNECTION to the death of the deceased with that of his employment as a truck driver. We cannot lose sight of the fact that a 45 years old driver meets with his unexpected death, may be due to heart failure while driving the vehicle from Delhi to a distant place called Nimiaghat near Jharkhand which is about 1152 kms. away from Delhi, would have definitely undergone grave strain and stress due to such long distance driving. The deceased being a professional heavy vehicle driver when undertakes the job of such driving as his regular avocation it can be safely held that such constant driving of heavy vehicle, being dependant solely upon his physical and mental resources & endurance, there was every reason to assume that the vocation of driving was a material contributory factor if not the sole cause that accelerated his unexpected death to occur which in all fairness should be held to be an untoward mishap in his life span. Such an „untoward mishap‟ can therefore be reasonably described as an „accident‟ as having been caused solely attributable to the nature of employment indulged in with his employer which was in the course of such employer‟s trade or business. 28. Having regard to the evidence placed on record there was no scope to hold that the deceased was simply travelling in the vehicle and that there was no obligation for him to undertake the work of driving. On the other hand, the evidence as stood established proved the fact that the deceased was actually driving the truck and that in the course of such driving activity as he felt uncomfortable he safely parked the vehicle on the side of the road near a hotel soon whereafter he breathed his last. In such circumstances, we are convinced that the conclusion of the Commissioner of Workmen‟s Compensation that the death of the deceased was in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the second respondent was perfectly justified and the conclusion to the contrary reached by the learned Judge of the High Court in the 5 order impugned in this appeal deserves to be set aside. The appeal stands allowed. The order impugned is set aside. The order of the Commissioner for Workmen‟s Compensation shall stand restored and there shall be no order as to costs”. 6. The above cited judgment facts are squarely applicable to the present case facts. In the present case also as per the statement of cleaner “that on 14.11.2011 night the lorry reached to the check-post of Purushothampuram wherein the deceased asked the Cleaner to check the lorry papers and he went to the top of the lorry and slept there. At about 23 hours, he fell down from the lorry, sustained injury on head and accordingly died on 21.09.2011 while undergoing treatment in Guntur Hospital”. While he was on duty, during sleep, unfortunately the deceased fell down, received injuries and died while undergoing treatment. 7. Perused the Order passed by the Commissioner, wherein the Commissioner considered the fact that R.W.1 who was examined on behalf of Appellant herein has admitted that at the time of the accident the insurance policy was in force, that on the date of the accident the deceased was working as Driver of the lorry of O.P.No.1 and the cause of death is due to fall from the top of the lorry, as such, the claimants proved the employee and employer relationship and it is also fact that it is clearly mentioned in the F.I.R., inquest report and also as per the evidence of A.W.2 about employment, accident, injuries and death of the deceased and as such, this Court do not find any merits and is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the C.M.A., is dismissed upholding the order passed by the Tribunal. No costs. ______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated:28.01.2026 KS 6 70 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1176/2017 Dated:28.01.2026 KS