Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 126
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
The New India Assurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Bandi Chandraiah S/o. Late Subbiah - Respondent
C.M.A.Nos. 216 and 217 of 2023
Decided on : 09-02-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K.V.SESHAGIRI RAO
For the Respondents: K RATHANGA PANI REDDY
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, an employer is liable to pay compensation for the death of a workman if the death occurred in the course of employment, regardless of the specific details of the insurance policy.
Headnote:
Workmen’s Compensation Act - Compensation for death in a motor vehicle accident - Section 30 - C.M.A.No.216 of 2023, C.M.A.No.217 of 2023 - Workmen’s Compensation Act
Fact of the Case:
The case involved claims for compensation for the death of two individuals in a motor vehicle accident while discharging their duties as coolies for a tractor. The appellant contested the claims, arguing that the insurance policy did not cover the risk of the deceased and that there was no employer-employee relationship.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased were indeed workmen and that there was a relationship between the employee and employer, making the appellant liable to pay compensation. The court upheld the decision of the tribunal and dismissed the appeals.
Issues: The issues involved whether the deceased was a workman, the age and wages of the deceased at the time of the accident, and the liability to pay compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the deceased were workmen and there was an employer-employee relationship, making the appellant liable to pay compensation. The court found no grounds to grant excess compensation and dismissed the appeals.
Final Decision: Both C.M.As were dismissed, and the appellants were permitted to withdraw the compensation amount as per their respective ratio by submitting a proper application before the tribunal. There were no costs awarded.
JUDGMENT :
C.M.A.No.216 of 2023 has been filed under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, against the Order and Decree dated 31.07.2008 passed in W.C.No.111 of 2005 by the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa, (in short ‘the Tribunal’) whereby the Tribunal has granted a total compensation of Rs.2,53,099/- for the death of the deceased Bandi Subhadramma in the accident that was occurred on 29.01.2005.
C.M.A.No.217 of 2023 has been filed under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, against the Order and Decree dated 31.07.2008 passed in W.C.No.149 of 2005 by the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa, (in short ‘the Tribunal’) whereby the Tribunal has granted a total compensation of Rs.2,53,099/- for the death of the deceased Uppatholla Ramadevi in the accident that was occurred on 29.01.2005.
2. Since the facts and issue involved in all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, I find it expedient to decide these matters by a Common Judgment.
3. The appellant herein is the 2nd opposite party; the respondents 1 to 3 herein are the applicants; 4th respondent herein is the 1st opposite party before the tribunal.
4. For the sake of convenience, C.M.A.No.216 of 2023 is taken into consideration as a leading case.
5. The claim of the respondents 1 to 3/claimants claiming compensation for the death of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 29.01.2005, which took place at tank bund, Cherukuvandlaplli Village, T.Sundupalli Mandal, Kadapa District, due to mud slide fell down on the deceased, while discharging her duties as a coolie for the Tractor under the employment of 4th respondent/1st opposite party, which is insured with the appellant herein. When the deceased was digging the earth, the big earth bounder was fallen upon them and the deceased sustained grievous injuries on their body and subsequently died. A case in Crime No.1 of 2005 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C has been registered by T. Sundupalli Police Station. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 have approached the appellant and 4th respondent with a request to pay compensation, but in vain. Hence the respondents 1 to 3 have approached the Tribunal.
6. The appellant herein i.e. 2nd opposite party before the tribunal have filed counter denying all material averments made in the claim and submitted that the 4th respondent has been declared as insolvent and that there is a bar in claiming indemnification of liability from the appellant in the absence of the same as observed by the learned Commissioner. There is no iota of evidence to show that the tractor and trailor of the 4th respondent was involved in the accident, so also, there is evidence to show that the deceased was engaged as coolie by the 4th respondent, as such, the relationship of employee and employer is absent. The insurance policy issued to the subject vehicle is for agricultural purpose, but whereas the vehicle was used for transportation of manure, which is a commercial purpose. No premium amount is paid to cover the risk of the deceased or any other person, except paid only for the driver. Therefore the appellant herein is not liable to pay any amount to the respondents 1 to 3 and requested to dismiss the same.
7. Basing on the pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed the following issues viz.,
1) Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923 and he was died out of and in the course of his employment under O.P.No.1 resulting into his death?
2) What was the age of the deceased at the time of accident?
3) What was the wages paid to the deceased at the time of accident?
4) What is the quantum of compensation payable to the applicants>
5) Who are liable to pay the compensation?
8. During the course of trial, the respondents 1 to 3 were examined as AW-1 and 2 and got marked Ex.A1 to A5 and none of the witnesses were examined and no documents have been marked on
