APHC010286122019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 89 OF 2020 Between:

1. UNITED INDIA INSURENCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SRIKAKULAM ...APPELLANT AND

1. SUNKARI PYDIRAJU, W/O, LATE NAGESWARA RAO, HINDU , AGED ABOUT 28YEARS HOUSE WIFE , RESIDENT OF AMMIGARI, KONERUGATTU, BOBBILI MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DT., 2. SUNKARI SRAVANTHI, D/O, LATE NAGESWARA RAO, HINDU , .

AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS. RESIDENT OF AMMIGARI, KONERUGATTU, BOBBILI MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DT., 3. SUNKARI MADHAVI, D/O, LATE NAGESWARA RAO, HINDU , AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS RESIDENT OF AMMIGARI, KONERUGATTU, BOBBILI MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DT., 4. SUNKARI SATTAMMA, W/O, LATE SATYAM HINDU AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDENT OF AMMIGARI, KONERUGATTU, BOBBILI MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DT., 5. RAWA SYAM SANKAR RAO, , S/O, RAJA RAO, HINDU,OCC. LORRY OWNER. R/O,D NO, 9-87, CITTLU STREET, SALUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL VIJAYANAGARAM DT., (2ND AND3RD RESPONDENTS ARE BEING MINORS REPRESENTS BY ITS NATURAL MOTHER AND GUARDIAN SMT. SUNKARI PYDIRAJU I.E., 1ST RESPONDNET)

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. AMANCHARLA SATISH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. G SAI NARAYANA RAO The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 89 OF 2020 JUDGMENT:-

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Appellant/ Respondent No.2 under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, questioning the Order dated 02.02.2019 passed in W.C.No.1 of 2017 of Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Parvathipuram (for brevity “the Tribunal”).

2. The Appellant is the Opposite Party No.2/ Insurance Company; Respondents No. 1 to 4 are the Applicants and Respondent No.5 is the Opposite Party No.1 before the Tribunal.

3. The Respondents 1 to 4 herein filed Application under Section 22 of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- due to death of the Mr. Sunkari Nagaswara Rao (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) during the course of his employment as a driver at Respondent No.5.

4. On 09/10.08.2015 at about 2.45 a.m, when the deceased and Thaddi Nooka Raju were going with coal load from Visakhapatnam to Gurur on two lorries bearing Nos.AP 35 W 7499 and AP 35 W 2677 and when they reached near Bolod Jagatara Village, the back tyre of the lorry bearing No.AP35 W 2677 was punctured. The said Thaddi Nookaraju the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 35 W 2677 and the deceased are got down from lorries. While they were changing the backside tyre of the lorry, the deceased was standing at the side of Thaddi Nookaraju in order to help to change the tyre of the lorry. In the meantime, one unknown Tavera vehicle came and dashed against the said drivers, for which they were sustained grievous injures on head and chest and both the drivers died on the spot. The Gurur Police registered a case in Crime No. 414 of 2015 under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC. Therefore, the Applicants filed the claim petition.

5. On hearing both sides, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 8,82,666/- to the Respondents No.1 to 4/ Applicants with interest at 5 ½ % p.a. Assailing the same, the instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal came to be filed.

6. Heard Mr. Amancharla Satish Babu, learned counsel for the Appellant/ Respondent No.2 and Mr. G. Sai Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the Respondents/ Applicants.

7. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the Appellant/ Insurance Company would contend that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the accident occurred when the deceased was helping the other lorry driver to change the tyre. Therefore, the incident does not come under the provisions of Employees Compensation Act, 1923. Further, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the distinction between the “personal work of a workman and a