JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 01.05.2026

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

GIST :

HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred:

1. (1969) 2 SCC 607

2. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1534

3. (2019) 11 SCC 514

4. (2017) 2 ALD 14 (SC)

JUDGMENT:

1. The present appeal is preferred by the Appellant/Insurance Company challenging the order dated 31.08.2005 passed in W.C. No.33 of 2004 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned order’) by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner for Labour, Circle - I at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Commissioner”).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their array before the learned Commissioner.

I. Brief Facts:

3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants filed an application under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.2,02,549/- contending that their son by name, Ch. Raghavender Reddy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) was employed by opposite party No.1 as a helper on JCB Machine, which was insured with opposite party No.2. The deceased was drawing a monthly wage of Rs.1,500/-.

4. It is further submitted that the deceased used to stay near the place of work along with the said machine and was also entrusted with the duty of guarding it. It is further stated that on 01.10.2002, while attending to his duties and resting, along with his co-workers near JCB machine, which was stationed close to the Kakatiya Petrol Bunk at Annojiguda, Ghatkesar, R.R. District, at about 2.30 AM on 02.10.2002, some robbers attacked the said petrol bunk and assaulted all the employees of opposite party No.1 including the deceased. The deceased sustained grievous injuries in the said incident and succumbed thereto.

5. A case in Crime No.56/2002 was registered. When the applicants approached the opposite party No.1 seeking compensation, the opposite party No.1 refused to pay any compensation. It is further stated that the opposite party No.1 had obtained insurance policy, which was valid from 11.05.2002 to 10.05.2003, which covered the risk of the deceased. Therefore, it is urged by the applicants that the opposite party No.1 being the employer and opposite party No.2 being the insurer, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the applicants.

6. The opposite party No.1 filed a counter admitting the employment of the deceased, wages of the deceased, death of the deceased, subsistence of the comprehensive policy covering the risk of the deceased, however, the opposite party No.1 prayed to direct that the opposite party No.2 be made liable to satisfy the claim.

7. The opposite party No.2 filed counter, wherein it is contended that the incident occurred beyond the scope of working hours of the deceased. It was further contended that the day on which the incident occurred was a labour holiday being ‘Gandhi Jayanthi’. It was further contended that the applicants received Rs.50,000/- from him through the District Collector, Mahabubnagar under the ‘Apadhbandhu’ scheme administered by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for accidents and deaths involved below poverty line family members. Thus, the said amount of Rs.50,000/- may be refunded to it from the amount of compensation awarded, if any to the applicant. It was further contended that the opposite party No.1 did not pay any specific premium to cover the risk of the deceased as a labourer, as such, prayed to dismiss the application against it.

II. Evidence:

8. Before the learned Commissioner, the applicant No.1 was examined as AW1 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. Whereas, on behalf of the opposite party No.2, its Administrative Officer was examined as