THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1114 OF 2006
JUDGMENT
This Appeal is filed by the legal heirs of the deceased workman against the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy District-II, Hyderabad dismissing the Application of the applicants in W.C.No.6 of 2005 by order dt.07.11.2006 without awarding any compensation.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this Appeal are that one Chindam Raju @ Rajaiah, aged about 30 years, was engaged as a driver of Tata Sumo bearing No.AP35B 3636 and on 06.02.2005 at 3.30 P.M. it met with an accident and the deceased died due to grievous injuries sustained by him. The legal heirs of the deceased filed an Application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation seeking a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Opposite Party No.1, owner of the Tata Sumo, appeared and stated that the Tata Sumo was given to a mechanic for general repairs and servicing and that the deceased along with other friends and co-workers who were employed in the nearby petrol bunk to the mechanic shop, had taken the said vehicle and met with an accident and died. It was stated that Opposite Party No.1 was being falsely implicated in the said case stating that the deceased is 2 the employee of Opposite Party No.1. Thus, the Opposite Party No.1 categorically denied the employment of the deceased as a driver on his Tata Sumo bearing No.AP35B 3636.
3. The insurance company has also filed a counter denying all the averments made in the Application and specifically denied the employment, the accident, the wages received by the deceased under Opposite Party No.1.
4. Taking the same into consideration, the Commissioner has rejected the Application and denied compensation to the petitioners and this Appeal is filed against the said order of the Commissioner.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants, Sri J. Sreenivasa Rao, submitted that immediately after the accident, a statement was given by Opposite Party No.1 before the concerned authorities stating that the deceased was working as his driver for the past 19 to 20 days and that he was paying Rs.2,250/- per month, but later on, during the course of the proceedings before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, he filed counter denying the employer and employee relationship. The learned counsel submitted that the report before the police should be considered as authentic and not the counter filed before the Commissioner as it could be only an after though to avoid any kind of liability arising out of accident. A copy of the same is also filed before this Court at page 12 of the appeal papers. 3
6. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent, Sri Vijay Ashrit, as well as the learned counsel for the insurance company-2nd respondent, Sri V. Venkatarami Reddy, were also heard.
7. On going through the material papers, this Court finds that in FIR No.23 of 2005, the statement of Sri Rathanam Anjaiah (Opposite Party No.1) is recorded, wherein he stated that he owns a lorry and a Tata Sumo and the Tata Sumo bears No.AP35B 3636 and that he had engaged Chindam Raju @ Rangaiah, S/o Chandraiah, aged 35 years, to drive the vehicle and that his monthly salary was Rs.2,250/-. He also stated that on 05.02.2005 in the afternoon, the driver had said that he wanted to go to Komaravelli temple for passengers and on his instructions, the vehicle was taken and the accident was reported to him on 06.02.2005. This statement was given before the police and it was at the first instance after the accident and therefore, has to be given credence over the counter filed subsequently denying the employer-employee relationship. The Commissioner had clearly erred in considering the counter filed by Opposite Party No.1 subsequently denying the employer and employee relationship.
8. Since the employer and employee relationship is established by the statement of Opposite Party No.1 before the police, the insurance company is directed to pay compensation to the petitioners by taking the wages at Rs.2,250/- per month as confirmed by Opposite Party No.1.
4
9. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
10. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this CMA shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 16.11.2021 Svv