Back
2022 Supreme(AP) 1413
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V. SUJATHA, J.
The Project Director, Pragathibhavan and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Sree Rama Sundaramma W/o Obulesu – Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 858 of 2009
Decided On : 20-04-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Respondent: V.R. Reddy Kovvuri.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and the determination of liability for compensation in cases of work-related deaths.
Headnote:
Workmen's Compensation Act - Compensation for death of workman - Section 4(A) (3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - The court discussed the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and the legal principles established in Bala Mallamma vs. Registrar, Osmania University, Hyderabad and Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India vs. Asha Chouhan.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants sought compensation for the death of a workman who fell from a building while painting windows during the course of his employment. The Commissioner awarded compensation, which was challenged in the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased's death arose out of and in the course of his employment under the supervision and control of the respective parties. The court upheld the Commissioner's findings based on the evidence and legal precedents.
Issues: The issues included determining the workman's status, age, wages, quantum of compensation, and liability of the parties to pay compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal principles established in Bala Mallamma vs. Registrar, Osmania University, Hyderabad and Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India vs. Asha Chouhan to support the Commissioner's findings.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, confirming the award of compensation. The claimants were entitled to withdraw the compensation amount with interest accrued.
JUDGMENT :
V. SUJATHA, J.
1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out an order dated 21.04.2005 passed in W.C. No. 128 of 2004 by the Commissioner for Wokmen’s Compensation and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa, awarding compensation of Rs.4,40,875/- and directing the opposite parties I to IV to deposit the said amount along with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of accident till realization by way of demand draft in favour of the Commissioner for Wokrmen’s Compensation and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kurnool drawn on State Bank of India, Kurnool, within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which, they have to pay penalty under Section 4(A) (3) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants being mother and brother of the deceased workman Sree Rama Chinna Obulesu, have filed a claim application seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of death of one Sree Rama Chinna Obulesu, who was a painter working under the employment of Opposite Party-I, who was a contractor for white-washing activity to the Opposite Party-IV for the building of Assistant Social Welfare Office in Pragathi Bhavan Complex of Opposite Party-I. The Opposite Party-II is the head of Pragathi Bhavan and the Opposite Party-III was supervising the activities of Pragathi Bhavan. On 22.06.2004, the Opposite Party-I instructed the deceased painter to paint windows and while the deceased started work at sun side of the building and was painting the window, the deceased unexpectedly fell down from the building and sustained injuries and he skull was fractured. Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital where he was declared dead during the course of treatment. The Civil Assistant Surgeon, who conducted post-mortem, opined that the deceased died due to Neurogenic shock. A case in Crime No. 119 of 2004 was registered by I Town Police Station, Kadapa. The deceased was aged 18 years at the time of death and was warning Rs.200/- per day as a skilled painter. Hence, the applicants claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. making all the Opposite Parties liable jointly and severally to pay compensation to the applicants, as the deceased died while he was painting the windows in the course of his employment.
3. While the Opposite Party-I remained ex-parte, the Opposite Parties II and III adopted the counter of Opposite Party-IV, wherein the Opposite Party-IV denied the averments in the petition and contended that the Opposite Party-I has entrusted the work of white washing to the building of Assistant Social Welfare Office and hence, the Opposite Party- IV was not aware of the fact of engaging the services of the deceased for painting the windows and thereby the Opposite Party-IV is no way concerned with the deceased and sought for dismissal of the claim application.
4. Basing on the above pleadings, the Commissioner framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and he met with an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting into death?
(2) What was the age of the deceased at the time of accident?
(3) What were the wages paid to the deceased at the time of accidental death?
(4) What is the quantum of compensation payable to the applicants?
(5) Who are liable to pay compensation to the applicants?
5. The mother of the deceased was examined as AW-1 and AWs. 2 and 3 were examined on her behalf and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. On behalf of the opposite parties, RW.1 was examined and no documents were marked.
6. After analysing the evidence on record, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the deceased was engaged by Opposite Party-I for white washing activity to the building of Assistant Social Welfare Office in Pragathi Bhavan, Cuddapah under the contract employment of the Opposite Party-I and the deceased had executed the said painting work. The Commi
