Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
R. Sreenu Guntur District and Others – Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 39 of 2016
Decided On : 30-09-2022
EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 - SECTION 2(D) - DEPENDANTS - DEFINITION - MAJOR BROTHERS NOT INCLUDED AS DEPENDANTS - APPLICANTS ARE MAJORS AND NOT DEPENDANTS - NOT ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
Deceased Rayapudi Guravaiah died in an accident while working as a cleaner in a lorry owned by the 2nd opposite party. The applicants, who are the deceased's major brothers, filed a claim for compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased died during the employment and out of the course of employment. However, the court also found that the applicants are not dependants as defined under Section 2(d) of the Act, as they are major brothers of the deceased and there is no evidence to show that they were wholly or partly dependent on the deceased's earnings.
Issues: 1. Whether the deceased Rayapudi Guravaiah died during the employment and out of the course of employment? 2. Whether the applicants are dependants and hence, they are entitled for compensation under the provisions of the Act 1923?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the applicants are not entitled to compensation under the Act as they are not dependants of the deceased. The court relied on the definition of 'dependant' under Section 2(d) of the Act, which does not include major brothers as dependants.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the lower tribunal awarding compensation to the applicants.
JUDGMENT :
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against order dated 28.05.2015 in W.C. Case No. 6 of 2010 on the file of Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ongole.
2. Parties to this judgment are referred to as per their array in W.C. Case No. 6 of 2010.
3. Applicants filed the case against the respondents claiming Rs. 4,00,000/- towards compensation with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of death till realization and for costs etc. for the death of Rayapudi Guravaiah, while working as cleaner in the lorry bearing No. AP-27V-8277 belonged to 2nd opposite party under Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (for short “the Act 1923”).
4. Applicants contended interalia that deceased Rayapudi Guravaiah, brother of applicants, while working as cleaner in Lorry bearing No. AP-27V-8277 of 2nd opposite party, on 11.07.2009 at 5.30 a.m. when the lorry reached Nalgonda, first opposite party, drove lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the lorry bearing No. AP-37T-6858, which was coming in opposite direction, as a result, both lorries were damaged. The cleaner of lorry bearing No. AP-27V-8277 sustained injuries and he was shifted to Government Headquarters Hospital, Nalgonda in 108 ambulance and while taking treatment, he died at 7.00 a.m. on 11.07.2009 in the hospital. It was averred that the accident was occurred out of employment and during the course of employment. 2nd opposite party is the owner of the vehicle, which was insured with 3rd opposite party. Therefore, respondents 2 and 3 are liable to pay compensation. The deceased is aged about 28 years and drawing Rs. 3,500/- per month towards salary.
5. 2nd Opposite Party filed counter and contended inter-alia that he is the owner of lorry bearing No. AP-27V-8277 and it was insured with 3rd opposite party vide policy No. 432900/31/2009/3824 for the period from 22.03.2009 to 21.03.2010; that Kandimalla Narasimha Rao is the driver of the lorry; that deceased never worked under his employment and there is no employee and employer relationship; that applicants are major brothers of deceased and they are not dependants, as such they are not entitled for compensation and thus, prayed the Court to dismiss the application.
6. 3rd Opposite Party filed counter and contended inter-alia that the applicants are major brothers of deceased and they are not dependants and hence, they are not entitled for any compensation for the death of their brother; that the accident was not occurred during the course of employment; that as per Section 134 (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act 1988”) it is mandatory duty of the insured to furnish the particulars of policy, date, time and place of accident, particulars of deceased and the name of driver and particulars of driving license, however, 2nd opposite party did not comply with the statutory demand; that as per Section 158 (6) of the Act 1988, it is mandatory duty of the concerned police station to furnish all the relevant documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from the date of information of accident, however no information was furnished by the Nalgonda II Town Police Station and eventually, prayed to dismiss the application.
7. Basing on the above pleadings, the tribunal framed the following points for consideration:
(1) Whether the applicants are entitled for compensation as claimed by applicants?
(2) Who are liable to pay compensation?
(3) To what relief the applicants are entitled to?
8. On behalf of applicants, 1st applicant was examined as AW-1 and Exs.A-1 and A-2 were marked. 2nd Opposite party was examined as RW-1 and the General Manager of 3rd opposite party was examined as RW-2. Copy of policy was marked as Ex.B-1.
9. Lower tribunal while dismissing the claim against the first opposite party (driver of vehicle), granted compensation of Rs. 3,70,783/- and directed
AI
Major brothers are not included as dependants under Section 2(d) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, and are therefore not entitled to compensation for the death of their brother.
Liability of the insurance company is contingent on the occurrence of the accident while the deceased was traveling in the insured vehicle.
The appellants were entitled to compensation for the employee's death as relationship with the employer was established, and the claim was not barred by limitation due to timing of civil death declar....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation for the death of a cleaner in an accident unless an extra premium is paid under the contract of ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for irrefutable evidence to establish the employee-employer relationship and the importance of statutory requirements in fixing ....
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
