An insurance company is liable for compensation claims under the Workmen’s Compensation Act even if no separate premium for laborers was paid, provided the employment relationship is established.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.

1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 assailing the order passed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Hyderabad in WC.No.79 of 2015, dated 15.06.2016.

2.1. Appellant herein is opposite party No.2, respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the applicants and respondent No.4 is the opposite party No.1 in W.C.No.79 of 2015.

2.2. Respondent Nos.1 to 3-applicants have filed petition under Section 22 of Employees Compensation Act, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest at 18% per annum from the date of accident on the death of U.Yadaiah against the opposite parties jointly and severally.

2.3. Respondent No.1-applicant No.1 is the wife, respondent Nos.2 and 3-applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the children of deceased U.Yadaiah.

3.1. It is stated in the application that U.Yadaiah was working as a laborer on a Tata Ace vehicle bearing No.AP16TY4945 under the employment of respondent No.4-opposite party No.1 and died on 16.05.2015 due to injuries sustained in the accident occurred on 30.03.2025 during the course of employment. On 30.03.2025, U.Yadaiah was on duty as laborer on the above said Tata Ace vehicle along with driver and other laborers, who were proceeding towards Makkampet for loading of red chilly and on the way at about 03.00 a.m., when they reached Mukkududevulapally cross roads, the driver of Tata Ace vehicle drove the same in rash and negligent manner due to which U.Yadaiah and others fell down from the vehicle. U.Yadaiah sustained grievous head injuries and was shifted to Government Hospital, Suryapet and for better treatment, he was shifted to Sunrise Hospital, Hyderabad. While undergoing treatment, he died on 16.05.2015. Deceased U.Yadaiah died during the course of his employment and that respondent Nos.1 to 3-applicants have spent Rs.3,00,000/- towards treatment of the deceased.

3.2. On the complaint, PS Athmakuru has registered a case in Crime No.54 of 2015 initially under Section 337 of IPC and after the death of U.Yadaiah, Section of Law was altered to Section 304- A of IPC. Deceased U.Yadaiah used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month, apart from that he used to get Rs.50/- per day towards batha and he was aged about 45 years as on the date of accident. Respondent No.4-opposite party No.1 was aware of the accident. Crime vehicle is insured with appellant-opposite party No.2, which is valid from 10.10.2014 to 09.10.2015, which is covering the date of accident (16.05.2015) and prayed to award compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest thereon.

4.1. Respondent No.4-opposite party No.1 has filed his counter and admitted the manner in which the accident has taken place and also admitted that he is the owner of the crime vehicle, he was doing business and engaged deceased U.Yadaiah for loading and unloading of chilly. He further stated that policy is in force and that appellant-opposite party No.2 is liable to pay the same and prayed to dismiss the claim application against him.

4.2. Appellant-opposite party No.2 filed counter and denied the manner in which the accident has taken place and further contended that no separate premium is paid to cover the risk of laborers, in absence of premium paid to the laborers, appellant-opposite party No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation.

5. The learned Commissioner has framed the following points for consideration:

1. Whether the deceased died on 16.05.2015 due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 30.03.2015 during the course and out of his employment as a laborer under the employment of the opposite party No.1 on the Tata Ace vehicle bearing No.AP16TY4945?

2. If yes, who are liable to pay compensation to the dependants of the deceased? and ;

3. What is the amount of compensation entitled by the dependants of the deceased?

6. Respondent No.1-applicant No.1 is examin