The court upheld that the death of a driver during a break from duty is compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, affirming the importance of employment connection in death claims.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.

1. This memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act assailing the order passed by the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-IV, Hyderabad in WC.No.91 of 2009, dated 12.01.2016.

2. Appellant is the opposite party No.2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the applicant Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.3 is the opposite party No.1 in WC No.91 of 2009.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2-applicants stated that Md.Wahiddullah Khatif @ Vahidulla worked as a driver on a lorry bearing No.MA 29M 6929 under the employment of respondent No.3-opposite party No.1. Md.Wahiddullah Khatif died in the course of employment on 09.03.2009 and that the opposite party No.2 is the Insurer of the said Lorry. The deceased was on duty as a driver on the above said date and he went to Amith Cotton Mill, Shadnagar, stopped the lorry and informed another driver i.e., Md.Feroz Khan that he is going to have his meals and when he reached a well for the purpose of fresh up, accidentally he slipped into the well and died. Deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and was aged about 45 years as on the date of accident and the prayed to grant Rs.6 Lakhs towards compensation along with costs.

4. Respondent No.3-opposite party No.1 filed counter and contended that the deceased was the driver and he died during the course of employment.

5. Appellant-opposite party No.2 filed counter and denied the manner in which the accident has occurred.

6. When the matter came up for the evidence of the applicants (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein), they filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 in the month of February, 2011 praying to amend the Lorry bearing No.MA 29M 6929 to MH 29M 2969. On contest, the application came to be allowed and the respondent Nos.1 and 2-applicants have amended the W.C.

7. Respondent No.3-opposite party No.1 filed counter stating that MH 29M 2969 is insured with the appellant-opposite party No.2.

8. Appellant-opposite party No.2 has also filed additional counter denying the involvement of the vehicle bearing No. MH 29M 2969.

9. The learned Commissioner has framed the following points for consideration:

1. Whether the deceased was working as a driver on the lorry bearing No.MH 29M 2969 under the employment of the 1^st opposite party?

2. Whether the death of the deceased on 09.03.2009 did arise out of and in the course of his employment?

3. If yes, who are liable to pay compensation to the dependants of the deceased? and;

4. What is the amount of compensation entitled by the dependants of the deceased?

10. Respondent No.1-applicant No.1 is examined as AW.1 and also examined AW.2-Md. Feroz Khan, driver on Lorry bearing No.MH 29M 2969 on 09.03.2009 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. Respondent No.3-opposite party No.1 is examined as RW.1 and got marked Exs.B1 and B2. Appellant-opposite party No.2 has examined Abhijeet Dubey, Administrative Officer as RW.2 and got marked Ex.B2.

11. The learned Commissioner after analysing the evidence adduced by the parties has awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,34,746/- payable by the opposite parties No.1 and 2 (respondent No.3 and appellant herein) jointly and severally along with interest @ 12% per annum from 10.04.2009 till the date of realization. The amount to be deposited within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order which is impugned in the Appeal.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the substantial question of law arises in the Appeal are :

I. Whether the commissioner is competent to entertain an application in case of death of the driver when it has no nex