THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.164 OF 2014

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by order, dated 12.03.2012, in W.C.No.10 of 2011 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour at Nizambad, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by Insurance Company (appellant).

2. On 14.02.2025, there was no representation on behalf of appellant. On 05.03.2025, none appeared for the appellant, matter was posted under the caption “for dismissal”. Inspite of being posted under the caption “for dismissal”, there is no representation on behalf of appellant on 27.03.2025, 02.04.2025 and 02.05.2025.

3. This Court on 27.06.2025 passed the following order:

“Inspite of matter being posted under the caption “for dismissal”, there is no representation on behalf of appellant.

CMA is of the year 2014 and WC is of the

year 2011. This Court is not inclined to dismiss

the matter for non-prosecution.

This Court deems it appropriate to

appoint Mr. S. Madhu Sudhan Reddy

(Phone.No.9949132182) (a young budding lawyer) as amicus curiae on behalf of appellant to assist the Court and make submissions.

Registry is directed to furnish a copy of entire set of documents to Mr. S. Madhu Sudhan Reddy (Phone.No.9949132182).”

4. Today, when the matter was called, Mr. A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel, informed this Court that appellant-New India Assurance Company Limited has informed about the CMA to him and requested him to appear in the matter and make submissions.

5. Mr. S. Madhu Sudhan Reddy, (young budding lawyer)

was appointed as amicus, is present.

6. This Court requested Mr. A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for appellant to make his submissions first and then Mr. S. Madhu Sudhan Reddy, learned amicus shall present his submissions.

7. Mr. A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant, submitted that there is no employer-employee relationship between the deceased and opposite party No.1-owner of the vehicle (Kashi Kishore Kumar). It is further submitted that death of the deceased is not covered under the insurance policy. It is also submitted that the Commissioner erred in law in concluding that the deceased, after finishing the work, while going to his house, met with an accident and that the theory of notional extension is applicable in the present case. That the applicants did not submit any documents with regard to employment nor the wages. It is pointed out that the individual died due to injuries sustained when his two wheeler got punctured and hit a stone far away from workplace while going home.

8. Learned amicus submitted that the theory of notional extension cannot be extended in the present case, as the accident occurred far away from work place, while the deceased was going to his residence. It is further submitted that the accident did not occur in the employer’s premises and the appellant-Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. It is also submitted that insurance policy does not cover the deceased. It is lastly pointed out that there was no employer-employee relationship between the deceased and opposite party No.1 (owner).

9. There is no representation on behalf of respondents.

10. Heard learned counsel(s) and perused the record.

11. On 19.05.2011 at 8:00 a.m., the deceased attended agricultural work in the land of opposite party No.1. After work, while returning home, he met with an accident at Malthumeda Sivar. The tyre of the motor cycle got punctured, he could not control the said motor cycle, dashed a big stone, suffered grievous injuries. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Yellareddy, from there to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. On 06.06.2011, he died while undergoing treatment.

12. Crime No.35 of 2011 under Section 304-A of IPC was registered in Nagireddypet police station. Deceased was a driver of tractor bearing No.AP-20-U-4386. The said tractor was registered in the name of opposite party No.1. Copy of the driving license of the d