Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sayyed Jareena 4 Ors vs Suvaada Rajesh Anr on 3 August, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
C.M.A. No.361 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section
30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short "Act") by
the legal heirs of the deceased wherein the claim petition was
dismissed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation Act
and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Guntur (for short
"Commissioner", in W.C. No.1 of 2006 by an order dated
10.06.2008.
2. Heard.
3. The facts are like this, the first applicant herein is the wife of
the deceased, she owned a Auto bearing No.AP16 X 5891. The
case of the first applicant is that she has sold vehicle to Sri
S.Rajesh, who is opposite party no.1 herein, by an agreement of
sale and the vehicle was not transferred in the name of the
opposite party no.1. and the vehicle was met with accident on
01.03.2005 and her husband employed with opposite party no.1
and prayed to award compensation as she along with other
dependents on the deceased have lost their bread winner. It is
further stated that the insurance policy was in force for the period
from 21.05.2004 to 20.05.2005.
4. The opposite party No.1 is the purchaser of the vehicle has
admitted that he is the owner of the vehicle and he purchased the
vehicle but the same was not transferred in his name. A copy of
notarized Agreement was filed by the opposite party no.1 to show
that he purchased the vehicle from the first claimant, which was
marked as Ex.B1.
5. The contention of the opposite party no.2 is that they have
addressed a letter to the Road Transport Authority, Vijayawada
regarding ownership of vehicle i.e. Auto bearing registered No.
AP16X 5891 and the Road Transport Authority have given reply
with form 21 wherein it is stated that the first applicant is the
owner of the Auto at the time of the accident. Basing on the
certificate issued by the Road Transport Authorities, the claim
petition filed by the first applicant and other family members was
dismissed on the ground that though the vehicle purchased by
opposite party no.1 transfer of the ownership was not done, despite
the admission made by the opposite party no.1 regarding
employment of the deceased with the opposite party no.1.
6. As per the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act,
the opposite party no.1 who is the employer is the correct person to
say about employment of the deceased, he admitted that the
deceased was his employee.
7. As per the judgment of the "Mohan Devi vs. Premkumar" 1 ,
when there is an admission by the employer relating to the
workmen of the vehicle owned by him when the accident took place
in the course of employment, the Commissioner's dismissal of the
claim application cannot be sustained. Madras High Court in
"Manickam v. Raju" 2 held that the insurance company cannot
escape the liability stating that they had not been intimated
transfer of the vehicle.
8. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case
"Gottumukkala Appala Narasimha Raju Vs. National Insurance
1 1999 (3) LLJ (Supp) 391 (P&H)
2 2005 (III) LLJ 820 (Mad) (DB)
Company Limited" 3 . Hon'ble Apex Court of India in unequivocal
terms held that documentary proof is required for the purpose of
accepting the employer and employee relationship between the
spouses and the relevant paragraphs of the judgment is extracted
hereunder:
"Undoubtedly, a Welfare Legislation and its provisions are to be
interpreted liberally and constructively. While interpreting the
Welfare Legislation, the Courts are expected to be cautious mainly
on C.M.A.No.1651 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.8760 of 2017 the ground
whether mandatory requirements are established beyond any pale
of doubt. If the mandatory requirements are not established, then
the Courts are not expected to show any misplaced sympathy and
grant compensation in favour of the claimant. Thus, a fine
distinction is to be drawn in a case where there is no evidence and
cases where evidences are available. If the employer-employee
relationship exist between the spouses, then it is necessary that
some acceptable evidence is to be produced for grant of
compensation."
9. Though there is admission by the opposite party no.1, that
the deceased is an employee at the time of accident and despite the
documentary evidence of Ex.B-1, the Commissioner Workmen has
erroneously dismissed the claim application filed by the claimant
no.1 and other legal heirs, is the contention of the appellants
herein.
10. In view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated supra, when
evidence is existence, there is no impediment or hindrance to
award compensation, if the claimant able to establishes employer
and employee relationship in between the parties.
11. And in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this
Court feels it appropriate to remand back to the Commissioner for
Workmen Compensation Act and Assistant Commissioner of
Labour, Guntur to consider fresh application basing on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
(2007) 13 SCC 446
12. It is needless to say that under Rule 21 of the Workmen
Compensation Rules, 1924, the documents can be produced with
the permission of the Commissioner at the time of hearing as such
the applicants are permitted to file any document in order to
substantiate their claims before the commissioner.
13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and
remand back to the Commissioner to dispose of the case as
expeditious as possible within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of Judgment. No costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, stands closed.
_______________________________________
JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Date: 03-08-2022
Harin
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
C.M.A. No. 361 of 2009
Date: 03-08-2022
Harin
