The Court made the following Judgment :

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company/ Opposite Party No.2 under Section 30 of The Workmen’s Compensation Act, questioning the Order, dated 12.10.2021 passed in W.C.No.7 of 2018 of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada (for brevity “the Tribunal”).

2. The Appellant is the Opposite Party No.2/ Insurance Company; Respondents No. 1 is the Applicant and Respondent No.2 is the Opposite Party No.1/ owner of the lorry before the Tribunal.

3. The Respondent No.1 i.e mother of the deceased filed Application under Section 22 of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation due to death of his son Mr. Muddangula Durga Prasad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) during the course of his employment.

4. On 22.11.2014 at about 2.00 a.m the deceased being the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 16 TU 5667 at Donabanda with load of chips to transport Payakapuram, beside Current Office Road along with another Tipper bearing No. AP 16 TU 788 and the same was unloaded at 3.30 a.m, thereafter two tipper drivers return to Donabanda, while reached at Inner Road, Jakkampudi stopped the lorries by the side of the road and slept on lorry. Next day morning at about 7.00 a.m the driver of the loprry bearing No. AP 16 TU 788 woke up the deceased, but he could not wake up and thereafter he found that the deceased was died in sleep. The body was sent to Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, the Ajith Singh Police registered a case in Crime No.144 of 2014 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C.

5. On hearing both sides, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.8,26,153/- to the Respondent No.1 / Applicant. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company filed the instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on the ground that the Tribunal ought to have held that the death of the deceased was due to heart attack was not an employment injury as defined under the provisions of Employees Compensation Act and there is no nexus between the employment and death of the deceased. The Tribunal ought to have held that as per evidence of AWs 1 and 3, the place of incident was not more than 50 kilometers from the place of residence of the deceased, as per the records of the deceased was not on the wheels of the lorry and that he was slept in the lorry, which does not fall within the definition of employment injury as defined under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act and as such, the claim of the Applicant is liable to be dismissed.

6. On perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, it can be observed that the sole Claimant being the mother of the deceased got herself examined as AW-1, who stated with regard to nature of the incident and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 in support of her case. Admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the said incident. She also got examined AW-2. O.P.No.1, who categorically deposed that on 22.11.2014 he worked as lorry driver for the vehicle No. AP 16 TU 788, after unloading the chips at Donabanda stopped the lorries by the side of road and both slept in the lorry. In the early morning when he tried to wake up the deceased, he could not weak up and found dead. The said fact was intimated by him to the Police, who registered a case in Crime No. 444 of 2014.

7. The Opposite Party No.1 got examined himself as AW-2, who spoke in support of the case of the Claimant and deposed that the deceased died during the course of employment. On behalf of Opposite Party No.2, the Administrative Officer of Insurance Company got examined and stated that the terms and conditions of the Insurance Company does not cover the claim of the Applicant as death of the deceased occurred during the course of employment, while discharging his duty as driver under lawful employment under Opposite Party No.1 and that there is no employer and employee relationship and that there was no nexus between death of t