APHC010268982012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3460]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 635/2012 Between:

United India Insurance Company Limited, Guntur. ...APPELLANT AND Telukutla Venkateswara Reddy And Another and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. NARESH BYRAPANENI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 635 of 2012

JUDGMENT:

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 ( for short ‘the Act, 1923’), by the Insurance Company questioning the Order dated 8-12-2005 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I Circle, Guntur in W.C.No.26 of 2003.

2. (i) The Claimant filed W.C.No.26 of 2003 seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an accident on 05.06.2002. As per the Claim, the Claimant was working as driver under Opposite Party No.1 in a lorry bearing No.AAK 4253 and had received injuries in an accident in the course of employment on 05.06.2002. A Criminal case was registered by Nunna Police with regard to the said accident.

(ii) It was pleaded in the claim that as the Claimant was earning Rs.4,000/- per month as monthly wages and aged 40 years at the time of accident, he sought for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

3. The Employer/Opposite Party No.1 filed his Counter Affidavit, while admitting the employment, accident, injuries, age and wages, contending that that the said vehicle was covered by the insurance policy at the time of accident.

4. Opposite Party No.2/Appellant/Insurance Company filed its Counter Affidavit disputing the claim on the ground that the claim is excessive and that Opposite Party No.1 had neither informed about the accident nor submitted any claim form and the driving license of the driver.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Commissioner, which read as follows:

1. Whether the applicant was a workman as per the provisions of the Act and he received personal injuries in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment ?

2. Amount of compensation payable ? and

3. Who are liable to pay the compensation?

6. In the course of the evidence, the Claimant himself was examined as AW.1 and Dr. P. Narasimham was examined as AW.2 and Dr. S. Amaranadh was examined on behalf of the Court as CW.1. No oral or documentary evidence was let in by the Opposite Parties. The claimant marked as many as 13 Exhibits i.e., Exs. A.1 to A.13—copy of FIR, copy of Police Report, Case Diary Part-1, Certificate issued by Dr. P. Gandhi, copy of the Insurance Policy, copy of the Driving License, copy of Receipt dated 24.01.2013 of Vijayawada City Police, Prescriptions, office copy of Legal Notice to OP No.1, Office copy of Legal Notice to OP.2, reply form—OP.No.2, Certificate issued by Driver. P.

Narasimham and X rays.

7. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the Commissioner, taking into consideration the minimum wages fixed to the H.V. Driver vide G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 27.07.2000 awarded compensation of Rs.1,02,294/-. The Opposite Party No.1 i.e., the Respondent No.2, and Opposite No.2/the Appellant were made liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally.

Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition by the Insurance Company.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant.

9. As notice was not served on the respondent No.2/Owner/Employer, this Court vide Order dated 05.02.2009 granted two weeks time for compliance and in default, the appeal would stand dismissed. The said order was recalled subsequently i.e., on 18.11.2009. Thereafter, as Notice to Respondent No.2 was not served, this Court on 16.12.2011 passed the following Order:

“The counsel for Appellant(s) is/are permitted to take out fr