Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 1263
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
SMT. GAVINI LAKSHMI & ANO – Respondent
CMA 345/2013
1. SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA, 1. A S LAKSHMI, 2. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO
The court affirmed the employer-employee relationship and awarded compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, establishing that the accident occurred in the course of employment.
Headnote:(A) Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 30 - Appeal against compensation order - The deceased was employed as a Cleaner and died in an accident while unloading goods, establishing employer-employee relationship - Compensation of Rs.3,89,552/- awarded, jointly and severally against employer and insurer. (Paras 1, 12, 18)
(B) Employment Relationship - The court upheld the employer-employee relationship despite the employer's denial, based on admissions made during cross-examination. (Paras 14, 15)
(C) Course of Employment - The accident occurred while the deceased was performing duties related to his employment, thus qualifying for compensation under the Act. (Paras 14, 18)
Facts of the case:
The deceased was a Cleaner for a lorry owner and died in an accident while unloading goods in Bangalore. Compensation was sought due to his death, as he was the sole breadwinner.
Findings of Court:
The Commissioner upheld the employer-employee relationship and awarded compensation of Rs.3,89,552/-.
Issues: The main issues included the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the deceased's age and wage, and entitlement to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the employer's admissions during cross-examination established the employment relationship, and the accident occurred in the course of employment, warranting compensation.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT:
1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act , 1923 questioning the Order dated 11.11.2011 in W.C.No.27 of 2010 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District.
2. O.P.No.2-Insurance Company is the Appellant herein.
3. The facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as follows:-
The husband of the Claimant by name late Gavini Ramana (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was working as a Cleaner in the Lorry bearing No. AP 05Y 6779 under O.P.No.1/owner three years prior to the date of accident and was being paid monthly wage of Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.50/- per day as allowance. On the instructions of O.P.No.1/owner, the deceased went to Jamshedpur in the offending lorry driven by one A.E. Appa Rao and after loading the Iron pipes for unloading at Veera Sandra, Bangalore.
4. On 01.11.2009, the lorry reached Bangalore and was parked at Sri Laxmi Venkateswara Lorry Transport Office, Bangalore. On the instructions of O.P.No.1/owner, the driver had engaged another local driver by name Balakrishna, as he had better acquaintance with the roads in Bangalore City. The deceased as the Cleaner accompanied the local driver Balakrishna to unload the Iron pipes at Veera Sandra and the lorry was stopped near Sankar Wines situated at Veera Sandra. As that day being Sunday, the Iron pipes could not be unloaded from the lorry and the local Driver Balakrishna went to his residence. Thereafter, at about 21.45 hours, one unidentified vehicle, which was coming from Bangalore to Hosur on N.H.7, hit the deceased, while the deceased was crossing the road. In the said accident, the deceased suffered grievous injuries and was admitted in NIMHANS Hospital, Bangalore for treatment. On the next day, the deceased succumbed to his injuries.
5. The local police were also informed of the incident and a criminal case was registered under Sections 279, 337 IPC and 134(a) & (b) R/w 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, which was later altered to Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and Section 134(a) & (b) R/w Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act in Cr.No.175 of 2009 by S.H.O. Electronic City Mobile P.S., Bangalore City.
6. On 03.11.2009 Post-mortem was conducted. As the deceased was the only income earning person, compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- was sought from the O.P.Nos.1 & 2 i.e. owner and the Insurance Company respectively.
7. O.P.No.1 i.e. owner of the lorry filed his counter disputing the jural relationship of the employer and employee and that the deceased never worked under him at any point of time. He deposed that he had engaged a driver by name Akula Eswara Rao and cleaner by name M. Sattibabu since the purchase of said vehicle and contended that the deceased was never engaged by him. However, it was admitted that the cleaner M. Sattibabu suffered with high fever and without intimation, the deceased was engaged by the driver Akula Eswara Rao, as a substitute to the regular cleaner M. Sattibabu.
8. O.P.No.2/Insurance Company filed its counter disputing the accident, employer and employee relationship, the age of the deceased and the salary that was being paid to the deceased.
9. On the basis of the pleadings, the Commissioner framed the following issues for consideration:-
1) Whether the deceased is a workman under the provisions of W.C. Act and there exists employee-employer relation and death arose out of and in the course of employment?
2) What is the age & wage of the deceased at the time of the accident?
3) Whether the applicant is entitled for any amount of compensation? If so what amount of compensation the applicants are entitled and who are liable to pay compensation?
10. In support of the claim, the Claimant herself was examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 i.e. Attested Xerox copy of AIR dated 02.11.2009, Attested Xerox copy of Post-mortem Report dated 03.11.2009, Attested Xerox copy of Inquest Report, dated 03.11.2009, Xerox cop
