JUDGEMENT

Heard Ms. I.Maamu Vani, learned counsel the appellant- insurance company and learned counsel Sri S.Sudarshan Reddy for the respondent Nos.1 to 5/applicants.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 08.06.2023 passed in E.C.No.283 of 2017 by the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation and Assistant Commissioner for Labour-IV, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Commissioner’).

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are that deceased—Penchala Srikanth was working as cleaner on lorry bearing registration No.AP-01-X-7677 and was earning monthly salary of Rs.12,000/-. On 31.08.2017, while the deceased was on duty as a clear on the above lorry and while transporting goods at Yesunagar, Mulugu, in order to protect goods from rain, the deceased was covering the goods with plastic cover, at that time, accidentally, he came in contact with live electric wire and died on the spot due to electrocution. The Police, P.S. Mulugu, registered a case in Crime No.225/2017 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C.

4. The deceased was aged 29 years, hale and health at the time of accident and used to contribute his earnings to the maintenance and welfare of his family. The applicants filed application under the provisions of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of death of deceased in an accident against the opposite party nos.1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the offending lorry.

5. The opposite party no.1/respondent no.6 herein, filed counter denying all the allegations, except those, which are specially admitted in the counter. He admitted that he was the owner of the lorry, but denied the employment of the deceased as cleaner on the said lorry and denied the employer and employee relationship between O.P.1 and the deceased. It is contended that he insured the lorry with O.P.2 and the insurance policy was in force and valid by the date of accident;

that if the Commissioner comes to a conclusion to award any compensation to the claimants, the same has to be awarded against O.P.2 and finally requested to dismiss the claim against him.

6. The opposite no.2-insurance company/appellant herein, filed counter denying all the material allegations mentioned in the application and further contended that there is no employer and employee relationship between the O.P.1 and the deceased. It is contended that amount of compensation claimed by the applicants with interest and costs are high, excessive, exorbitant and not in accordance with law and finally, prayed to dismiss the claim against the insurance company.

7. Basing on the above pleadings, the Commissioner had framed the following issues:

i) Whether the deceased was an employee within the meaning of the Act, worked as cleaner on the lorry bearing No.AP-01-X-7677 under the employment of O.P.1 and met with an accident on 31.08.2017 during the course and out of his employment resulting in his death ? ii) If yes, who are liable to pay compensation to the dependants of the deceased? iii) What is the quantum of compensation entitled by the dependants of the deceased?

8. In order to substantiate the case, the 1st applicant herself was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked on their behalf. On behalf of the opposite parties, none were examined, however, copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1 on behalf of O.P.2.

9. The Commissioner, on due consideration of the evidence adduced and documents placed on record, awarded compensation of Rs.7,14,053/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till the date of realization.

10. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for appellant submitted that there was no employer and employee relationship between the deceased and the respondent no.6 herein; that the Commissioner ought to have seen that there was no evidence that deceased had suffered electrocution during the course of his employ