HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.759 of 2013
JUDGMENT:
1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against order dated 27.03.2006 in W.C.No.30 of 1997 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Warangal-I, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner'). The said case was filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein seeking compensation for death of one Badukuri Ganesh (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') in an accident that occurred on 14.06.1996 and the same was allowed by the Commissioner granting compensation of Rs.1,10,005/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed at the instance of the insurance company i.e., opposite party No.2 before the Commissioner.
2. The appellant herein is opposite party No.2, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are applicants and respondent No.3 herein is opposite party No.1 before the Commissioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Commissioner.
3. The claim petition is filed by the applicants, who are father and mother of the deceased seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for 2 MGP,J CMA_759_2013 death of the deceased on 14.06.1996. According to the applicants, the deceased was working as cleaner on the lorry bearing No. APO 3242 under the employment of opposite party No.1. While so, on 14.06.1996, the deceased along with the driver of the vehicle went to Keshavapatnam on the instructions of opposite party No.1. However, opposite party No.1 sent information to the applicants that their son was suffering from vomiting, as such he was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal, where he died. According to the applicants, the deceased was aged about 22 years, at the time of incident and he was working as cleaner. He was being paid an amount of Rs.1,000/- by opposite party No.1 towards salary. As the death occurred, while he was working as cleaner i.e., during the course and out of his employment with opposite party No.1, the present application is filed by the applicants. The applicants claim that both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation for death of the deceased.
4. Opposite party No.1 filed his counter admitting the employment of the deceased on the lorry owned by him. He also admitted the salary paid to the deceased and stated that the deceased died during the course of employment with him. He stated that the cause of death was stomach pain, diarrhea and vomiting. It is his case that the death 3 MGP,J CMA_759_2013 of the deceased was natural death, as such he is not liable to pay any compensation. Further, he stated that the lorry bearing No.APO 3242 was insured with opposite party No.2 with insurance policy valid from 11.09.1995 to 12.09.1996. Therefore, if there is any liability, opposite party No.2 is liable to pay compensation.
5. Opposite party No.2 filed its counter denying the employee and employer relationship between the deceased and opposite party No.1. It also denied the manner of the incident, age of the deceased and also wages paid to him. It is stated that the death of the deceased was natural.
6. In support of their case, the applicants got examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. Opposite party No.1 got examined one A.Venkateshwarlu as R.W.1, but did not adduce any documentary evidence. Opposite party No.2 did not adduce any evidence.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings and evidence, the Commissioner framed the following issues for consideration:
"1.Whether the deceased Bodukuri Ganesh is a workman as per the provisions of the Act, he died due to grievous injuries in an accident arising out of his employment?
2. What was the age of the deceased at the time of accident?
3. What were the wages paid to the deceased at the time of accident?4
MGP,J CMA_759_2013
4. How much quantum of compensation payable?
5. Who is liable to pay the compensation?"
8. After considering the evidence and documents filed by both sides, the Commissioner awarded an amount of Rs.1,10,005/- towards compensation to the applicants. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed at the instance of opposite party No.2 i.e., the insurance company.
9. Heard, both sides.
10. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party No.2 is that the deceased died due to stomach pain, diarrhea and vomiting, which is clearly a natural death. Hence, opposite party No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation under the provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/applicants contended that the Commissioner has rightly considered the evidence placed on record and granted just and reasonable compensation to the applicants for the death of the deceased. The same requires no interference by this Court. 5
MGP,J CMA_759_2013
12. Now, the point for determination is as follows:
"Whether the applicants are entitled for compensation as granted by the Commissioner?"
Point:-
13. This Court perused the entire evidence placed on record. Applicant No.1, who is father of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and deposed reiterating the contents of the claim petition. The applicants got examined one P. Sammi Reddy as P.W.2, who was present at the panchayath which was held after the death of the deceased.
14. In favour of opposite party No.1, the driver of the lorry in which the deceased was employed was examined. He admitted that the deceased was working as cleaner in the said lorry. He deposed that he was sent along with the deceased in the lorry to Keshavapatnam with load of fertilizer bags. The deceased was well at the point of loading and later, he complained uneasiness. After which, he did vomiting for two to three times and he suffered from loose motions also. Accordingly, he was taken to M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal, where he died.
6
MGP,J CMA_759_2013
15. The main contention of the learned counsel for appellant/opposite party No.2 is that the death of the deceased was natural death, as such he cannot be treated as dead during the course and out of his employment. Therefore, insurance company cannot be held liable for any compensation.
16. It is pertinent to state that admittedly the deceased died while he was on duty as cleaner. The evidence of R.W.1 shows that they were travelling on the lorry owned by opposite party No.1 with load of fertilizer bags. It is also deposed by him that the deceased suffered with vomiting and loose motions and then, he was shifted to hospital, where he died. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the deceased died during and course of his employment under opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 admitted in his counter that the deceased was working under him as a cleaner. The Commissioner after considering all these aspects has rightly come to the conclusion and held that both the opposite parties are responsible and granted just and reasonable compensation. Therefore, interference of this Court into such findings is unwarranted. The appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7
MGP,J CMA_759_2013
17. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 27.03.2006 in W.C.No.30 of 1997 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Warangal-I. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 18.11.2023 GVR