P. S. NARAYANA, J.

( 1 ) THE substantial question of law raised in the present civil miscellaneous appeal preferred by the opposite party No. 2, United India Insurance co. Ltd. , represented by its Regional manager, Regional Office, Basheerbagh, hyderabad, against the order made in W. C. No. 22 of 2001 is, whether the Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation is justified in awarding compensation though the admitted facts go to show that the death of the workman was not arising out of employment though it may be in the course of employment.

( 2 ) THE respondents-claimants filed the c. M. P. No. 5334 of 2003 to vacate the interim order dated 18. 2. 2003 made by this court in C. M. P. No. 3810 of 2003. At the request of both the counsel, the main civil miscellaneous appeal itself is taken up for final disposal at this stage.

( 3 ) THE facts in brief are that one S. Manipal Reddy, resident of Cherukupally village, Diddi Mandal, Nalgonda District worked as a truck driver under opposite party No. 1 in W. C. No. 22 of 2001 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen s compensation at Nalgonda, and while he was on duty he halted his lorry near Brahmadev within the police station limits of Harai of chhindwara District of Madhya Pradesh. The said Manipal Reddy was in-charge of truck bearing No. AP 9-U 4440 owned by opposite party No. 1. On 22. 2. 2001 another truck bearing No. AP 9-V 0700 which also belonged to opposite party No. 1 and at the relevant time came from Delhi was stopped at the same place by its driver Bahadur khan and as both the drivers were working under the same employer, Bahadur Khan stopped his truck on seeing the vehicle of the deceased. There was a quarrel between the two drivers and Bahadur Khan hit the deceased on the head and as a result of the injury he succumbed to the injury on the spot. The deceased truck driver is a workman and he met his death during the course of employment with opposite party No. 1. He was paid Rs. 3,000 towards wages besides batta of Rs. 50 per day. It is further stated that opposite party No. 2, the present appellant insurance company, is also liable for payment of compensation by virtue of policy No. 050305/31/021/16/03389/2000, which was valid from 8. 5. 2000 to 7. 5. 2001. On 19. 11. 2001, opposite party No. 1 was set ex pane. PW 1 was examined and Exhs. A-l to A-7 were marked. The documentary evidence relied upon by the respondentsclaimants reveals the nature of incident and both the drivers referred to supra had their meal and quarrel erupted on the issue of sharing of the cost of chicken and the deceased was beaten black and blue with an iron rod by the other driver and thus the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Exh. A-l is a certified copy of the F. I. R. in the cr. No. 9 of 2001 registered under section 302, Indian Penal Code. Exh. A-2 is the translated version of Exh. A-l, which was written in Marathi language. Exh. A-3 is the final report. Exh. A-4 is the translated version. Exh. A-5 is the requisition of police for post-mortem of the dead body. Exh. A-6 is the driving licence. Exh. R-l is a photocopy of the insurance policy. Apart from the documentary evidence, the evidence of PW 1, the wife of the deceased is also available on record. The Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation had recorded a finding that the incident happened during the course of employment and in view of the policy both the opposite parties were held to be liable to pay the compensation individually and also jointly.

( 4 ) MR. Brij Mohan Singh, the learned counsel representing the appellant insurance company had raised only one question, the question already referred to supra and in all fairness had submitted that the facts do reveal that the resultant death was in the course of employment, but definitely not arising out of employment. Learned counsel made elaborate submissions on this aspect and had explained the phrases in the course of employment and arising out of employment in detail and had submitt

Click Here to Read the rest of this document