Appeal Under Section_____against orders

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

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

IA NO: 2 OF 2019

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

IA NO: 3 OF 2019

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

The Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T:

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the insurance company/opposite party No.2 in W.C.No.86 of 2014, aggrieved by the award dated 04.01.2019 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

a) The opposite party No.1 is an agriculturist who cultivated paddy in his agricultural land. As he intended to store the paddy at Proddutur, he transported the same through his tractor-trailer bearing Nos. AP 04 H 2621 and 2622 on 16.01.2010. The opposite party No.1 engaged the applicant and one Alamuri Kullayyappa as coolies for loading and unloading the paddy. On the instructions of the opposite party No.1, the applicant and Kullayyappa went to Proddutur in the said tractor, unloaded the paddy from the trailer, and while returning to Sambaturu village at about 9:00 p.m., when the tractor reached near Ankalamma Temple on the Potladurthi–Kamalapuram road, the driver drove the tractor and trailer in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and failed to control the vehicle. As a result, the tractor-trailer turned turtle, due to which the applicant sustained fractures to both legs near the knee joints. The applicant was shifted to the Government Hospital, Proddatur, and thereafter to the Himalaya Hospital, Kadapa, where both his legs were operated and metal rods were fixed.

b) It is the case of the applicant that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment under opposite party No.1 as a coolie, and that the vehicle was insured with the 2nd opposite party insurance company under Policy No.10003/31/10/189723, valid from 13.11.2009 to 12.11.2010. Yerraguntla Police registered a case in Crime No.11 of 2010 under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC. The applicant further stated that he was earning Rs.150/- per day and was the sole earning member of his family. Due to the fractures, he suffered permanent disability, is unable to perform his earlier work, cannot squat or sit cross-legged, and requires support to walk. He also suffered considerable pain during treatment. Hence, he sought compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-.

4. Before the Commissioner, the 1st opposite party remained exparte.

5. The 2nd opposite party filed a written statement denying all the allegations and contended that the applicant must strictly prove the same, including his employment and income, by documentary evidence. It was further contended that the claim is excessive and liable to be dismissed.

6. On behalf of the applicant, A.W.s 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to Ex.A.5 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd opposite party, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1/insurance policy was marked.

7. After careful consideration of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, and the material facts available on record, the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa, passed an award opposite parties 1 and 2 to jointly and severally deposit a sum of Rs.2,20,631/- towards compensation, along with stamp duty of Rs.441/- and interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident till realization, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.

8. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is filed on the grounds that the Commissioner failed to appreciate that there was no employer– employee relationship between the claimant and