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.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present C.M.A is filed under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 questioning the Order dated 11.01.2010 in W.C.No.3 of 2009 passed by the Commissioner of Labour for Workmen’s Compensation, Ongole, Prakasam District.

2. The Claimants are the Appellants herein.

3. The facts leading to filing of the present are as follows:-

The claim application was filed by the wife and two minor daughters of one Shaik Masthan @ Mastan Vali (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’). The deceased was working as a Cleaner on Lorry bearing No.AP-27-V-9007 owned by O.P.No.1.

4. On 17.09.2008, the deceased along with the Driver Pathan Yasin and Water Plant Helper Gudipudi Siva started from Akkayapalem Water Plant at 8.45 a.m. to go to Ongole as per the instructions of O.P.No.1. When the vehicle reached Vetapalem, near Kotta Kaluva bridge, a Tractor bearing No.AP-27-U-6733 was coming towards Vetapalem from Pandillapalle with a sand load and entered on to the bridge in a rash and negligent manner and almost hit the lorry in which the deceased was travelling. There was an altercation between the lorry driver along with the deceased and the driver of the tractor.

5. In the exchange of words between them, one R.T.C. Bus, which stopped behind the tractor, was continuously blowing horn and the tractor driver with an intent to give way drove the vehicle at that place without looking at the fact that the deceased and the helper were in front of the vehicle. In the process the deceased and the helper of the water plant got crushed between the lorry and tractor and received grievous injuries. Immediately 101 and 108 ambulances were called and both of them were shifted to Government General Hospital, Chirala. The deceased died on 20.09.2008 while undergoing treatment. The Police of Venkatapalem P.S., had registered the accident as Cr.No.127 of 2008 under Section 337 IPC. Later, on account of the death of the deceased and the water plant helper, Section of law was altered to Section 304-A IPC. As the accident occurred in the course of employment, the application was filed seeking compensation under the Act.

6. It was pleaded that the deceased was aged 28 years and getting Rs.4,500/- per month as salary from O.P.No.1 and Rs.1,000/- as collection batta and therefore an application was filed seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

7. O.P.No.1/employer filed a detailed counter supporting the claim and stated that the deceased was being paid Rs.3,500/- per month as salary and that the vehicle was insured with O.P.No.2-Insurance Company.

8. O.P.No.2-Insurance Company filed its counter contending that the deceased was not the cleaner in the lorry and the policy issued by O.P.No.2 did not cover the risk of cleaner or persons travelling in the lorry and therefore the accident did not happen in the course of employment.

9. On the basis of the respective pleadings, the Commissioner framed the following issues for consideration:-

1) Whether the deceased was a workman under the 1^st opposite party and died due to accident arising out of and in the course of his employment?

2) If so, what is the age and wage of the deceased?

3) To what relief the dependents of the deceased are entitled?

4) To which extent the opposite parties are liable for payment of the compensation?

10. The Claimant No.1 i.e. the wife of the deceased herself was examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 i.e. Certified copy of F.I.R, Certified copy of Inquest Report, Attested copy of Post-mortem Report, Attested copy of M.V.I. Report and Attested copy of Report of A.S.I, Vetapalem respectively. The Claimant reiterated her claim averments and sought for compensation.

11. O.P.No.1 i.e. owner himself was examined as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 insurance policy. No oral or documentary evidence was let in by the O.P.No.2-Insurance Company.

12. The Commissioner taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence and relying on a Judgment of this Court United India Insurance Company vs. Sudini