Accidents occurring during the course of employment, regardless of the vehicle used, are compensable under the Employees' Compensation Act, emphasizing employer liability and the relevance of the notional extension doctrine.

JUDGMENT :

(LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.)

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-insurance company challenging the order passed by the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour- IV: T.Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavan, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad (for short, ‘Labour Court’)in E.C.No.197of 2018, dated 06.01.2025.

2. Heard Sri V. Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for appellant- insurance-company, Smt. Annapurna Sreeram, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6, who is on caveat.

3. Appellant herein is the Insurance company, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are claimants and respondent No.6 is the owner of the crime vehicle. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.

4.1 One Sri Damodar (hereafter referred as ‘deceased’) is the husband of respondent No.1, father of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and son of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Deceased worked as driver with the respondent No.6, on a lorry bearing No.TS 12 UB 2640 and while he was in duty on 25.07.2018, he was proceeding from Miryalguda to Hyderabad on the said lorry with load of paddy dust. When he reached Duppalaplly Village, he stoped the lorry for want of diesel and made a telephone call to his employer and on instructions of the employer, deceased while proceeding to Korivengudem on a motorcycle bearing No.AP 24 AX 1011, for collecting amount for diesel and on the way about 4.00 P.M, when he reached culvert bridge at the outskirts of Kananpally Village, Thipparthy Mandal, he lost control over the mototcycle and due to which motor cycle turned turtle on the culvert bridge and as a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his head and other parts of the body. Deceased was taken to hospital and later shifted to Hyderabad and while shifting to Hyderabad, he died at 8.30 P.M. Based on the complaint, Thiparthy Police Station registered a case in Crime No.105 of 2018, under Sections 304-A of the IPC.

4.2. The claimants, i.e., parents and wife of the deceased, have filed claim petition against the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, before the Labour Court, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest from the date of accident till the date of realization.

4.3 It is contended that deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 30 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and a batta of Rs.200/- per day and used to contribute the same to the welfare of his family and due to sudden death, petitioners have lost their future hope love and affection of the deceased.

5. The opposite party, who is the owner of crime vehicle remained ex-parte.

6. The opposite party No.2, filed a counter denying the contents of the petition and contended that insured vehicle was not involved in the accident and the deceased was not driving the insured vehicle at the tile of the accident and in fact, he was driving a motor cycle. Therefore, Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the deceased. They further averred that deceased was not an employee within the meaning of employees compensation Act, 1923 as the accident did not arise out of and in the course of the employment of the deceased and further denied that the driver was not having valid and affecting driving license as on the date of the accident. Hence prayed to dismiss the application.

7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

i) Whether the deceased was an employee and met with an accident on 25.07.2018 during the course and out of his employment as driver on the lorry bearing No. TS 12 UB 2640 in the employment of O.P.1 and died?

ii) Who are liable to pay compensation to the applicants? And;

iii) What is the am