Date of reserved for orders : 10.07.2026 Date of pronouncement : 29.07.2026 Date of uploading :03.08.2026 APHC010239442019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE 29th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 363 OF 2019 Between: 1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Ananthapuramu Town, Ananthapuramu District ...Petitioner AND 1. SANA BRAHMACHARI, Brahmachari S/o Nagamuni Achari Aged 43 years,native of D.No.2/84, Somavandlapalli Village,Talupula Mandal, Ananthapuramu Dist., now all are residing at BJA Kottala, 2. Naga Jyothi, D/o S. Brahmachari Aged 11 years,native of D.No.2/84, Somavandlapalli Village,Talupula Mandal, Ananthapuramu Dist., now all are residing at BJA Kottala, 3. S Naveenachari, S/o S. Brahmachari Aged 5 years,native of D.No.2/84, Somavandlapalli Village,Talupula Mandal, Ananthapuramu Dist., now all are residing at BJA Kottala, 4. Chappidi Govindu, S/o Somaiah, Rajupalem Village, Kothapatnam Mandal, Prakasam District (Mastery/Contractor) 2 5. Basireddy Siva Shankar Reddy, S/o B.Bali Reddy, D.No.11-155-A, 15t Floor, BSN Estates, Hospital Road, Ananthapuramu, Now residing at D.No.11-20, Saptagiri Circle, Ananthapuramu-515 001 (Employer of the Constructing Building) ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: A JAYANTHI Counsel for the Respondents: HARISH KUMAR RASINENI The Court made the following order: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 363/2019 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 29.12.2018 passed in E.C.No.10 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ananthapuramu, whereby the Commissioner directed the opposite parties to pay the compensation to the applicants and further directed the applicants to make a representation before the Commissioner for Employee‟s Compensation and Joint Commissioner of Labour, Kurnool, for release of compensation amount. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the 1st opposite party, being a Mestery/contractor, had undertaken the construction of a building belonging to the 2nd opposite party. One Smt. Sana Krishna Kumari (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) was employed as a coolie in the said construction work under the 1st opposite party and was earning about Rs.300/- per day. On 29.04.2014 at about 09:30 a.m., during the course of her employment, the deceased loaded bricks from the ground floor into a trolley and signalled the other coolies stationed on the top floor to pull the trolley. While the said coolies were pulling the trolley, the hook of the trolley suddenly snapped, as a result of which, the trolley along with the bricks fell forcefully on the head of the deceased. Consequently, she sustained severe injuries on her head and other parts of the body and succumbed to the 4 same. In connection with the said incident, a case in Crime No.248 of 2014 was registered at Ananthapuramu II Town Police Station. 3. It is the contention of the applicants, namely, husband and children of the deceased that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1st opposite party/Mestery, and filed E.C. No.10 of 2015 seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- contending that the 1st opposite party, being the contractor, the 2nd opposite party, being the owner of the building, and the 3rd opposite party, being the insurer, are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation. 4. No counter was filed on behalf of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. However, the 3rd opposite party filed a counter denying the averments made in the claim petition, particularly, with regard to the age and wages of the deceased, the manner in which the accident occurred, the existence of employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the 1st opposite party, and the coverage of the insurance policy in respect of the deceased and prayed to dismiss the application with costs. 5. Based on the above pleadings and submissions, the learned Commissioner framed the following points for determination: a) Whether the deceased was employee as per the provisions of the Employee‟s Compensation Act, 1923 and he met with the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting in to death? 5 b) What was the age of the age of the deceased employee at the time of accident? c) What were the wages paid to the deceased employee at the time of accident? d) What is the amount of compensation payable? e) Who are liable to pay compensation? 6. Based on the above points for determination, the learned Commissioner allowed the application, holding that the deceased was an employee within the meaning of Employee‟s Compensation Act, 1923, and that the insurance policy issued by the 3rd opposite party covered the risk of the deceased. Consequently, all the opposite parties were held jointly and severally liable, and awarded compensation of Rs.7,57,667/- with 12% interest per annum from the date of application till the date of realization. 7. Aggrieved by the order, the 3rd Opposite Party filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 9. The solitary contention urged by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant is that the policy does not cover the risk of an employee who is engaged by the opposite party no.1/the contractor, as the policy was issued in favour of the owner of the building/ 2nd opposite party. As such, for the liability of the 1st opposite party, the appellant cannot be made liable. In this 6 regard it is apt to consider the terms of the policy as mentioned in the policy document which reads as under: Section II – Third Party Liability Sl.No. Limit of indemnity in respect of any one accident or series of accidents arising out of one event Total limit of Section II during the policy period Any one Person 10. The relevant condition of the policy, as extracted above, would show that the policy was issued in favour of the 2nd opposite party i.e., the owner of the building, for covering the risk during the course of construction which is limited to indemnification by the insurance company in respect of any one accident or a series of accidents arising out of one event during the policy period in respect of ‘ANY ONE PERSON’. In the instant case, the opposite party No.2 is the policy holder and principle employer, and the policy was issued in his favour for specific premises on which the construction is being taken place, covering the incidents such as the one in question. All the conditions of the policy are satisfying enabling the indemnification of the liability of the 2nd opposite party. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the opposite party No.1 being the contractor is liable, and there is no privity of contract between the appellant company and the 1st opposite party, as such, the appellant is not in obligation to pay the compensation as awarded by the Commissioner, cannot be accepted as the 7 policy covers the construction activity in the premises and the worker is admittedly working in the construction activity of the premises covered under the insurance policy. Though she was engaged by a contractor, she has been attending the duties at the premises covered by insurance policy and the event happened at the premises covered under the policy and the deceased alone was the person suffered, as such, Section –II of the policy squarely covers the situation. That apart, the deceased is working in the construction activity at the insured premises of the 2nd opposite party, as such, it cannot be said that she is not the employee working under the 2nd opposite party and further the policy does not restrict the coverage to the employee working directly under the 2nd opposite party. The policy only refers to the incident that took place in the premises and covers „any one person‟. Thus, it cannot be said that the policy does not cover the present situation. 11. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the commissioner had considered all the aspects of the matter and after thorough consideration of the matter, awarded the compensation to the respondents/ applicants and this court does not find any irregularity, illegality or infirmity in the order and require no interference. 12. Accordingly the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 8 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 29.07.2026 Dvs Whether the order is: Speaking ☑ Reasoned ☑ Reportable Non-reportable ☑ 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI 95 CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 363/2019 Dt:29.07.2026 Dvs