1 VS,J C.M.A.No.1371 of 2017 APHC011391002016 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: 1371/2017 Between: 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, VIJAYAWADA ...APPELLANT AND 1. SMT SHAIK NURJAHAN, GUNTUR 2. SHAIK MAIMUNNISA, VIJAYAWADA 3. SHAIK RIJWANA, VIJAYAWADA 4. SHAIK KASIM SAIDA, VIJAYAWADA 5. SHAIK SAIDA, VIJAYAWADA 6. L NAGARJUNA, VIJAYAWADA ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal Under Section_____against ordersto set aside the order in WC NO. 1 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation & Asst. Commissioner of Labour, at Guntur, dated 30th April, 2016, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2016(CMAMP 1319 OF 2016 2 VS,J C.M.A.No.1371 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 condone the delay of 54 days in preferring the appeal against the order and decree in WC No. 1 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation & Asst. Commissioner of Labour,a t Guntur, dated 30th April, 2016 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2016(CMAMP 1338 OF 2016 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 grant stay of operation of the decee and order in WC No.1/2014 on the file of the Court of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation & Asst. Commissioner of Labour, at Guntur, dated 30th April, 2016 pending disposal of the main CMA IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CMAMP 1069 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 vacate the interim order dated 26.08.2016 passed in CMAMP No.1338/2016 in CMASR No.30080/2016 Counsel for the Appellant: 1. A JAYANTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MARELLA RADHA The Court made the following: 3 VS,J C.M.A.No.1371 of 2017 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen?s Compensation Act, 1923, by the appellant/3rd opposite party challenging the order dated 30.04.2016 passed on the file of the Court of the Commissioner for Employees? Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Guntur in W.C.Case No.1 of 2014, whereby the Court below awarded a compensation of Rs.5,77,552/- to respondent Nos.1 to 4/applicants against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/-. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: (a) For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed before the Court below. The applicant, being the wife of late Shaik Saida Vali (hereinafter referred to as >deceased workman?), filed a case before the Court below claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of her husband in an accident that took place on 20.07.2012, while he was driving the lorry bearing No.AP-27-W-3168. The 1st opposite party is the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP-27-W-3168 and is the father of the deceased. The 2nd opposite party is the policy holder of the lorry bearing No.AP-27-W-3168. The 3rd opposite party is the insurer of the vehicle bearing No.AP-27-W-3168. 4 VS,J C.M.A.No.1371 of 2017 (b) On 20.07.2012, at about wee hours, while the subject vehicle was proceeding from Tirupathi to Rajupalem, at Padarupalli village of Nellore district, the driver of the vehicle, drove the same in a rash, negligent manner and having lost control over the same, hit a stationed lorry, as a result of which, the deceased workman sustained injuries and died on the spot. The said incident was reported to Nellore V town Police station and accordingly, a case was registered in Crime No.292 of 2012 under Sections 304-A, 337 of the Indian Penal Code. It was contended by the applicant before the Court below that the deceased workman was earning Rs.3,000/- per month in addition to a batta of Rs.100/- per day and that he is aged about 27 years. (c) The 1st opposite party filed a counter stating that the deceased workman worked as a driver for the lorry bearing No.AP-27-W-3168 and that he died during the course of employment. The 3rd opposite party filed a counter denying all the averments of the applicant and contended that the deceased and the 1st opposite party have no employee-employer relationship established. It was further contended that the subject lorry was driven by cleaner but not by the deceased. (d) After considering the submissions of either side, the Court below framed the following points for consideration: 5 VS,J C.M.A.No.1371 of 2017 1. Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of the Act and he died during the course of employment? Or not, under Opposite Party-1. 2. What is apparent age of the deceased? 3. What is the wage of the deceased? 4. Whether the deceased was entitled without Driving License to compensation in this claim? 5. Amount of compensation payable to the deceased? (e) During the course of trial, on behalf of the applicants, A.Ws-1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the 3rd opposite party, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B5. (f) The Court below, having considered the claim of the respondent Nos.1 to 4/applicants, awarded a sum of Rs.5,77,552/- to the respondent Nos.1 to 4/applicants and held that the 1st and 3rd opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the applicants. 3. Heard M/s A. Jayanthi, learned counsel for the appellant/3rd opposite party and Smt. Marella Radha, learned counsel for the respondents/applicants. 4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant argued that at the time of accident, the deceased was sleeping on the top of the cabin while the subject lorry was being driven by its cleaner unauthorizedly. She further contended that the person who was driving the subject lorry does not possess any valid driving license and the same has 6 VS,J C.M.A.No.1371 of 2017 been corroborated by the evidence of R.Ws.1 to 3. It is the further contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the Court below has erred in making the appellant jointly and severally liable along with the 1st opposite party. Hence, requested this Court to allow this appeal. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants has supported the order passed by Court below in all aspects and contended that the employee-employer relationship between the deceased and the 1st opposite party, though they are father and son, was well established before the Court below as under Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen?s Compensation Act, 1923. She further contended that though the person driving the subject lorry is not in possession of a valid driving license, the fact that the deceased died in the course of employment is sufficient for the insurer to indemnify the employer. As such, she requested this Court to dismiss this appeal as it is devoid of merits. 6. Perused the material available on record. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased, who is a driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-27-W-3168, which belongs to the 1st opposite party and insured by the 3rd opposite party, died on 20.07.2012, in an accident that occurred while the said vehicle was proceeding from Tirupati to Rajupalem. In general, a father engaging his son as an employee in a vehicle owned by the father is not prohibited in law nor it can be said that such a situation is not normally possible. It is natural that a 7 VS,J C.M.A.No.1371 of 2017 father engages his children as an employee. Thus, the relationship between the deceased and the 1st opposite party, who is the father of the deceased is well established and the same need not be doubted. 7. The Court below, relying on the inquest report (Ex.A2) and postmortem report (Ex.A3), considered the age of the deceased as 27 and in the absence of any documentary proof, the minimum wage of the deceased, who was working as driver, was considered as Rs.5397.75/- and the total compensation payable to the claimants was computed to Rs.5,77,552/-. The compensation awarded by the Court below is not at all in dispute by either of the parties, but the main ground on which the appellant – insurance company filed this appeal is that the liability of paying compensation to the claimants ought not to have been imposed on it. It is the case of the appellant that at the time of accident, the subject vehicle was being driven by the cleaner of the vehicle, who holds no valid driving license and not by the deceased; that the deceased was sleeping on the top at the time of accident and that he did not die during the course of his employment. 8. Under similar circumstances, in a 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, at paragraphs No.27 and 28 it was held as follows:- 8 VS,J C.M.A.No.1371 of 2017 <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 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=. 9. Undisputedly, whether the person driving the subject vehicle at the time of accident is holding a valid driving license or not, would not be of any relevance in determining the liability arising on account of the death of another workman. Time and again, Courts have held that a workman, who sustained injuries or had died in the course of employment would give rise to award of compensation and once a valid policy exists, the insurer has to indemnify the employer. The manner in which the vehicle was used or the question as to 9 VS,J C.M.A.No.1371 of 2017 whether driver had a license would be of little relevance in this regard. Admittedly, the deceased was on duty, but has died unfortunately by falling down in an accident that took place on the fateful day. 10. The Tribunal, considering the evidence adduced by the claimants and as well as exhibits relied on by them, has rightly awarded the said amounts and held that in all, the claimants would be entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,77,552/-, which is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. Further, this Court finds no fault on the part of the Court below in fixing the liability on the appellant herein. 11. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:28.01.2026. Gss