HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.17 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri V.Venkata Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company and Sri G.Chandrasekhar Reddy Gopi Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/ applicants.

2. This appeal has been filed assailing the orders passed in E.C.No.26/2017(F), dated 22.06.2000 on the file of Commissioner of Employees’ Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). The said matter arises under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.

3. It is settled principle of law that the substantial question of law has to be looked into and the appellant/opposite party No.2 has raised the following substantial questions of law:

i) Whether the deceased is a workman within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and whether deceased died during the course of employment under the opposite party No.1 ?

ii) Whether the deceased comes under the employee and employer relationship between the deceased and the owner of the lorry, who is opposite party No.1 since both are natural brothers ?

4. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased-Donuru Kiran Reddy was working as Driver with the respondent No.3/opposite party No.1 on lorry bearing registration No.AP-30T-1224 and the deceased being driver alleged to be drawing Rs.10,000/- per month besides Rs.200/- per day as batha. On the fateful day i.e., on 18.08.2017 the deceased was proceeding from Hyderabad to Kakinada Port with metal load and on 19.08.2017 at around 1.00 p.m., the lorry turned turtle and as the cabin of the lorry was totally crushed, the deceased died on the spot by succumbing to the injuries and a case was registered as Crime No.207/2017 on the file of P.S. Peddapuram of East Godavari District under Section 304-A IPC. It is submitted that the deceased was aged about 26 years and was possessing valid driving licence and working as driver and the applicants i.e., mother and father, who are the dependents of the deceased, has filed the said claim for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and it is submitted that the policy was in force with the appellant/

opposite party No.2 and it was stated by the opposite party No.1 that an additional amount of Rs.100/- was paid for insuring the driver.

5. The Tribunal after elaborate enquiry and trial was pleased to frame the issues and the sum and substances of the said issued are, i) Whether the deceased is a workman within the meaning of the Act and whether deceased died during the course of employment under the opposite party No.1 ?

ii) Whether the applicants are entitled to compensation on the death of the deceased ?

6. As seen from the order and decree in E.C.No.26 of 2017(F), as many as Exs.A1 to A9 were marked and P.Ws.1 and 2 are let-in evidence and the Tribunal after considering the scrutiny of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also Exs.A1 to A9 has categorically held that the deceased was working as a driver with the opposite party No.1. Though the owner of the lorry bearing registration No.TS-30T-1224 was the real brother of the deceased, there cannot be any doubt that the deceased being younger brother cannot be coming under the purview of the Workmen and it is also pertinent to note that the opposite party No.1 was having two lorries and that the deceased was gainfully employed as workman with the opposite party No.1 was not doubtful and the appellant/opposite party No.2 has not produced any evidence to show that the deceased was not employed with opposite party No.1 and the Tribunal after appreciating the facts on record has categorically held that the deceased was working as driver under the opposite party No.1 and falls within the definition of workman and as such, after appreciating all the facts on record and the facts that led to the accident on 18.08.2017, wherein the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot on the fateful day and the Tribunal, having found that the deceased was a workman under the definiti