Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 2282
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1240 OF 2012 Between:
1. M/S. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURNACE CO.LTD.,, Rep. by its Manager, E/8, RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
...APPELLANT(S)
AND
1. G NAGENDRA 5 OTHERS, S/o. G.Chikkanna, R/o.
Marrimakulapalli Village, Kambadur Mandal, Anantapur District.
2. Kum G Gangamma, D/o. G.Nagendra, R/o.
Marrimakulapalli Village, Kambadur Mandal, Anantapur District.
3. G Chittaiah, S/o. G.Nagendra, R/o. Marrimakulapalli Village, Kambadur Mandal, Anantapur District. (R3 & R5 are minors rep. by their Natural Guardian and Next Friend of father G.Nagendra I.e. R1)
4. Kum G Lakshmi Devi, D/o. G.Nagendra, R/o.
Marrimakulapalli Village, Kambadur Mandal, Anantapur District.
5. G Raj Kumar, S/o. G.Nagendra, R/o. Marrimakulapalli Village, Kambadur Mandal, Anantapur District. (R3 & R5 are minors rep. by their Natural Guardian and Next Friend of father G.Nagendra I.e. R1)
6. K Rami Reddy, S/o. K.Jayarami Reddy, R/o. D.No. 1-647, Rudrampet, Anantapur.
...RESPONDENTS Appeal Under Section_____against orders I.A. NO: 2 OF 2012(CMAMP. NO: 2371 OF 2012)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased grant interim stay of all further proceedings including withdrawal of the deposited amount of Rs.3,39,160/- to the credit of WC No.19/2010 on the file of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Asst.Commissioner of Labour, Dharmavaram, pending disposal of CMA in the interest of judtice I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(CMAMP. NO: 452 OF 2014)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay granted in CMA MP No.2371 of 2012 in CMA No.1240 of 2012 dt.06.12.2012 and to permit the petitioner to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant I.A. NO: 1 OF 2012(CMAMP. NO: 2260 OF 2012)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 146 days in resubmitting the above CMA (SR) No. 20969 of
2012 in the interest of Justice.
Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRI. MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Counsel for the Respondents: INENI VENKATA PRASAD The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.M.A.No.1240 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
1. The present Civil Miscellaneous appeal is filed against the order dated 27.04.2012 in W.C.No.19 of 2010 passed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Dharmavaram.
2. Insurance company is the appellant and the claimants are the husband and children of the deceased.
The facts leading to this appeal are as under:
On 01.08.2009, the deceased Smt. G.Anandamma and others were proceeding for harvesting and loading sweet millions in a lorry bearing No.AP02-W-2369 on the instructions of the opposite party No.1. When the lorry had reached near the fields of Danda Hanumantha Rayudu in between Mulakanur – Cherlopalli road, the driver of the vehicle had lost control of the vehicle and the vehicle turned turtle and in the said accident, Smt. G.Anandamma received grievous injuries and died on the spot. A case was registered by Kambadur P.S vide Crime No.69 of 2009 under sections 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC. As the accident had occurred in the course of employment under opposite party No.1, the claim was made for compensation. It was pleaded that the deceased was employed by opposite party No.1 at Rs.6,000/- per month.
3. The owner i.e. opposite party No.1 remained absent during the enquiry before the Commissioner and was set ex parte on 20.01.2011. The opposite party No.2 i.e. the Insurance company filed counter denying the claim and in their pleadings, every facet of the accident was denied starting from valid driving licence to the driver, valid permit and fitness certificate of the vehicle, the claimants relationship with the deceased, employer-employee relationship, age and wages of the deceased.
4. In the course of enquiry, AWs.1 and 2 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked on behalf of the claimants. There was no oral or documentary evidence filed by the opposite party No.1 or opposite party No.2 i.e. the appellant herein. A.W.1 is G.Nagendra i.e claimant No.1 and husband of the deceased, who deposed that the deceased Smt. G.Anandamma was working under opposite party No.1 as a Coolie and was given salary at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month. On 01.08.2009, the said witness A.W.1 reiterated the manner in which the accident occurred.
5. One G.Narasimha was examined as A.W.2, who deposed that he was an eyewitness to the accident. The Commissioner after examining the evidence opined that the deceased was employee of the opposite party No.1 and that the accident occurred in the course of her employment. It was also held by the Commissioner that as there was insurance coverage by policy No.10003/31/10/007186, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 were held to be liable for the compensation. The Commissioner awarded a compensation of Rs.3,39,160/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till the date of realization. Hence, the present appeal is filed.
6. In the grounds of appeal, the substantial questions urged were regarding the employer-employee relationship, and that the deceased was to be treated as an unauthorized passenger in the lorry and in violation of the policy.
7. As regards the first question i.e. whether there is employer-employee relationship, this Court is of the opinion that as the deceased was in the lorry as a Coolie for loading sweet millions as indicative to establish employer-employee relationship. This being a normative understanding of a visualisable fact, it is for the appellant- insurer to establish otherwise and a routine denial would not suffice. In this case, apart from routine denial, there is no evidence to prove otherwise. Apart from this, the view taken by the Commissioner being a plausible view, this Court cannot substitute the plausible view considering the scope of appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act’) as explained in Fulmati Dharmdev Yadav & Anr V. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. and Anr1. Hence, this issue urged by the appellant-Insurance company is rejected.
