Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Dr. K. Manmadha Rao, J.
The United India Insurance Company Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Kunireddy Vara Laxmi - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 208 of 2019
Decided On : 10 -11-2023
Workmen's Compensation Act - Compensation Claim - Section 30 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Section 4(A), Section 3 - The court discussed the interpretation of 'arising out of and in the course of employment' and the principles laid down in various judgments to determine the causal relationship between the accident and the employment. The court emphasized the liberal construction of the Employees Compensation Act 1923 to advance its welfare objectives.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased workman, a lorry driver, died in a tragic accident during the course of his employment. The applicants filed a claim for compensation against the employer and the insurer. The employer denied the allegations and contested the claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the deceased's death occurred during the course of employment and that the employer and insurer were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the dependents of the deceased. The court emphasized the liberal interpretation of the Workmen's Compensation Act to ensure deserving workmen receive full and speedy benefits.
Issues: The key issue was whether the deceased's death arose out of and in the course of employment, and the liability of the employer and insurer to pay compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of 'arising out of and in the course of employment' and emphasized the need for a causal connection between the accident and the employment. The court also highlighted the beneficent nature of the Employees Compensation Act 1923 and the need for a liberal construction to advance its welfare objectives.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, and the court found no merit in the appeal. The employer and insurer were held liable to pay compensation to the dependents of the deceased.
JUDGMENT
K. Manmadha Rao, J. - The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for brevity 'the Act') aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2016 passed in W.C.No.06 of 2015 by the Commissioner of Employees Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle-II, Visakhapatnam (for short 'the Commissioner').
2. The Appellant herein is the Respondent No.2/ Opposite Party No.2 and the respondents No.1 to 5 are the applicants/claimants and respondent No.6 is the Opposite No.1 in W.C No.06 of 2015. For sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the Commissioner.
3. The applicants have filed the impugned W.C.No.06 of 2015 before the Commissioner seeking for a direction to Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation for Rs.8,00,000/-.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased was workman within the meaning of the Act employed as a Lorry Driver by the Opposite No.1 on his Lorry bearing No.AP 26 TT 7529. On 26.05.2014 at about 7.00 p.m., the deceased was received a phone call to attend for duty immediately then by informing the same to the 1st applicant left the house. Thereafter on the very next day i.e., on 27.05.2014 the 1st applicant received a phone call from the unknown person that he deceased was found dead in the Lorry bearing No.AP 26 TT 7529. Immediately, the 1st applicant made a complaint to the SHO Gajuwaka Police Station and thereafter the deceased was shifted to KGG, Visakhapatnam and conducted postmortem. It is stated that on 26.5.2014 the deceased was on duty as a driver on the said lorry for attending the work as instructed by the employer i.e., Opposite Party No.1. The Gajuwaka police has registered a case in Crime No.322 of 2014 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. It is stated that the accident occurred during the course and out of employment of the Opposite Party No.1. they stated that while discharging his duties on the said Lorry the workman died in the tragic accident during the course of his employment. The deceased workman was paid wages @ Rs.10,000/- per month and that he was aged about 35 years at the time of accident and that the said Lorry was insured with the Opposite Party No.2 who is appellant herein. Therefore, the applicants have filed the impugned application claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- against the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.
5. Despite service of notice on the Opposite party No.1, neither attended nor filed the counter and hence, he was set ex parte before the Commissioner. The Opposite Party No.2 filed counter and denied all the allegations made in the petition and also denied that the workman sustained injuries during the course and out of his employment and the wage claimed by the applicants. It is contended that the deceased was died due to injuries sustained in the accident, during the course of employment of the Opposite Party No.1 and therefore, it is the responsibility of the applicants to prove the same with strict proof. Further, the applicants are fabricated the mysterious death case which was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C into an accident case which is due to the reasons mentioned in Section 174 of Cr.P.C and trying to get an unlawful gain from the Opposite Party No.2 under the colour of employment Compensation Act 1923. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the application against it.
6. During course of trial, on behalf of the applicants, AW.1 was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked.
7. The learned Commissioner, after hearing on both sides passed an order holding that (i) both the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount of Rs.7,23,506/- to the applicants who are dependants of the deceased. The Opposite Parties are further directed to deposit the said amount by means of a DD drawn on any Nationalized bank in favour of the Commissioner of Employees Compensation and the Joint Commissioner of Labour, V
An injury is compensable if it arises out of and in the course of employment, establishing a causal connection between the accident and the workman’s duties.
The court confirmed that a work-related heart attack constitutes an accident under the Employees Compensation Act if stress from employment contributed to the health condition, validating claims for ....
The central legal point established is the requirement of proving a causal connection between the accident and employment under Section 3(1) of the 1923 Act.
The court established that under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the burden of proof lies with the claimants to demonstrate a causal link between employment and the death of the employee, and that th....
Workmen’s compensation - Natural death - Death by heart attack is an accident is well recognized.
Point of law: expression "accident" means an untoward mishap which is not expected or designed. "Injury" means physiological injury. In Fenton v. Thorley & Co. Ltd., (1903) AC 448, it was observed th....
An employer is liable for compensation if an accident arises out of and in the course of employment, regardless of any altercation preceding the accident.
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
