Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. VENKATA RAMANA, J.
M/s. Nepcon Nat. Engg., Projects Constru. Another – Appellant
Versus
Sri Murapaka Satyanarayana 2 Others – Respondent
C.M.A.No.2001 of 2004
Decided on : 17-02-2021
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 174 – Workmen Compensation – Appellants are the opposite parties and the respondents were the applicants in the enquiry before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation – Respondents laid a claim application to award a compensation of Rs.4,36,940/-and for costs, on account of death of Sri M.T.S.Kumar. – The respondents 1 and 2 are his parents and the third respondent is his younger brother. – The first respondent as a contracting agency had undertaken certain works in the manufacturing unit of the second respondent, where usually they were producing sulpher phospate and manufacturing fertilizers.
Finding of court: When all these circumstances are taken into consideration, the inference to draw is that Sri M.T.S.Kumar, died on account of working at the premises of the second appellant and the plausible and probable cause for his death is thus directly connected to his work at that time. – Thus causa causons is established and nexus is built. – In this background, as in Jyothi Ademma’s case, Hon’ble Supreme Court, when a contributory cause had lead to the death of the deceased Sri M.T.S.Kumar, it has to be held that his death arose during and in the course of employment, making both the respondents liable. – Rejecting the contentions of the appellants and accepting the contentions of the respondents, this point is held to the effect that the deceased died during and in the course of his employment and that the appellants are liable to satisfy the claim of the respondents – In view of the findings on point No.1, for different reasons, the order of the Commissioner has to be confirmed. – While arriving at the compensation the commissioner took into consideration not only the age of the deceased but also minimum wages payable to him as a worker employed in chemical industry. – There is no reason to differ with the finding so recorded by the Commissioner. – In view of the findings on points 1 and 2, this appeal has to be dismissed confirming the order of the Commissioner and without costs.
Result: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Dismissed
ORDER :
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner under Workmen Compensation Act cum Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle - II, Visakhapatnam, in W.C. case No.17 of 2003 dated 24.01.2004.
2. The appellants are the opposite parties and the respondents were the applicants in the enquiry before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation (Commissioner for ‘short’).
3. The respondents laid a claim application to award a compensation of Rs.4,36,940/-and for costs, on account of death of Sri M.T.S.Kumar. The respondents 1 and 2 are his parents and the third respondent is his younger brother. The first respondent as a contracting agency had undertaken certain works in the manufacturing unit of the second respondent, where usually they were producing sulpher phospate and manufacturing fertilizers.
4. The deceased Sri M.T.S.Kumar, was an employee and a painter for the first appellant according to the respondents. They further claimed that on 03.05.2002 at about 8.50 a.m. when Sri M.T.S.Kumar, was attending to painting work at the factory premises of the second appellant at the top level, he fell down accidentally due to chemical reaction and received grievous injuries to his head, who died consequently there itself. When he was taken to Community Health Center, Aganampudi, by the staff of second appellant, he was declared brought dead by the medical officer of the health center.
5. The respondents also claimed in their application that the deceased was hale and healthy, who never suffered from any ailment earning Rs.4,075/-, and was 24 years old by the time of the accident. Thus, they justified their claim for compensation and as his legal heirs to succeed to his estate.
6. Both the appellants opposed this claim specifically contending in their counter disputing the nature of this accident and as well as the cause of the death of Sri M.T.S.Kumar. They did not dispute that the deceased was working for the first appellant and that they stated that he joined the said company in April 2002, where he worked for a short duration of about 20 days or a month as a helper to the painter, who was being paid Rs.75/-per day as a casual daily labour.
7. Their specific contention is that on the date of the accident, the deceased Sri M.T.S.Kumar, worked from 8.15 a.m. in a routine manner and at about 12.50 p.m. he complained severe chest pain, whereupon he was taken to the Health Center, at Aganampudi for treatment by the staff of the first respondent, where he was pronounced dead.
8. Thus, they denied that the deceased died on account of the injury suffered in the alleged accident as attributed by the respondents stating that he was suffering from heart ailment, who was not in good terms with his family members, viz., the respondents. They also contended that on the fateful day, he did not have food and was not taking any food for days together. Referring to the outcome of the investigation by the police, in Crime No.34 of 2002 of Parwada Police Station registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. on 03.05.2002, particularly the post-mortem examination and the inquest, these appellants also contended that the material revealed that the deceased died of heart failure and anemia. Thus, they claimed that the death was self-inflicted.
9. Before the Commissioner, the first respondent examined himself as A.W.1 while relying on Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. On behalf of the first respondent, R.W.1-a supervisor working in that company was examined through whom Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 were marked. R.W.2 is the painter working for the first appellant company and deposed about the incident properly. R.W.1 was then technical assistant in the second appellant company through whom, Ex.R6 was marked during enquiry.
10. Basing on the material, the Commissioner settled the following issues for enquiry.
2. If so, what is the wage and age of the worker and to what amount of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
