Hdfc Ergo Gen Ins Co Ltd., Vja, ... vs Taki Vijayalakshmi, Guntur Dist 4 ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9732 AP

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

      CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.484 OF 2016

JUDGMENT:

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved by

the order dated 02.01.2016 passed in W.C. Case No.27 of 2014

on the file of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation &

Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Guntur (hereinafter called,

'the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation).

2. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein (hereinafter called, 'the

claimants') filed Claim Petition before the Commissioner for

Employees' Compensation claiming compensation on the death

of one Teki Uma Maheswara Rao, who worked as driver of the

lorry bearing No.AP 07TU 7539, which belongs to opposite party-

I in the claim petition and the 5th respondent herein. The case of

the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein is that Teki Uma Maheswara

Rao (hereinafter called, 'the deceased') worked as lorry driver

with the opposite party-I and one Thota Ramana Reddy, who is a

cleaner of the said lorry and they started with load of juice

packets and the said load was unloaded at Itchapuram,

Srikakulam on 27.05.2014 and the said Uma Maheswara Rao,

who is driver of the lorry, collected transport charges of

Rs.29,500/- from juice dealer and returned back with empty

lorry along with cleaner-Thota Ramana Reddy and they reached

Gaithula Chowadavaram village, Puspatirega Mandtalam,

Vizianagaram District at about 12-00 noon, the driver of the

lorry kept his lorry in a serial for loading purpose at

C.P.Company on NH-16 road margin and parked the vehicle and

slept on the back seat of the driver and the cleaner of the lorry

Thota Ramana Reddy throttled the neck of the deceased and

extracted money, as a result of which, the deceased-Uma

Maheswara Rao lost his breath and the case was registered in

Crime No.103 of 2014 and postmortem examination was

conducted at District Hospital, Vizianagaram. The dependents of

the deceased filed the claim application before the Commissioner

for Employees' Compensation and the Commissioner for

Employees' Compensation awarded an amount of Rs.4,70,479/-

towards compensation to the claimants. Aggrieved by the said

order, the present appeal came to be filed by the Insurance

Company on the ground that the death of the deceased is not

caused due to the accident and as per the evidence of the

opposite party-I, there is no relationship of employer and

employee between the deceased and the opposite party-I, who is

arrayed as respondent No.5 herein and that the Commissioner

for Employees' Compensation has wrongly awarded the

compensation in favour of the claimants and hence prayed to

allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the Commissioner

for Employees' Compensation.

3. On going through the award of the Commissioner for

Employees' Compensation, no reasons have been assigned by

the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation. As per the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

S.N.Mukherjee v. Union of India1AIR 1994 held that keeping in

view the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice

that the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of

the principles of natural justice which governs exercise of power

by administrative authorities, except in cases where the

requirement has been dispensed with expressly or necessary

implication, is required to record the reasons for its decision.

1990 AIR 1984

4. In the case of Krishna Swamy v. Union of India and

others2, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that rule of law, any

action, decision or order of any statutory authority or public

authority must be founded upon reasons stated in the order or

starting from the record. The Court further observed that the

reasons are the links between the material and the foundation

for their erection and the actual conclusions and they would also

demonstrate how the mind of the maker was activated and

actuated and their rational nexus and synthesis with the facts

considered and the conclusions reached.

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant-Insurance Company that the deceased was not died

due to accident and he was murdered. On entire reading of the

order of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation, no

reasons were assigned how the death was caused and the

learned counsel for the appellant would rely on the judgment of

the common High Court in the case of New India Assurance Co.

Lted. V. M.Parvathamma and others3 for the proposition that

(1992) 4 SCC 605

2015 ACJ 2046

there is no finding given by the Commissioner for Employees'

Compensation about the murder that was taken place not as the

main felonious act but it is only incidental or ancillary to the

main act of felony. The Commissioner for Employees'

Compensation was not adverted to the issue whether the death

was occurred due to the accident or it was a murder. In view of

the same, the order of the Commissioner for Employees'

Compensation is liable to be set aside and the matter is to be

remanded to the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation for

re-considering the issue raised by the appellant-Insurance

Company with regard to the death of the deceased, i.e., whether

it was occurred accidentally or ancillary or it was a murder for

gain. There is no representation for the respondents to assist

the Court to come to a conclusion on the said aspect. In view of

the same, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order

of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation, remanding

the matter to the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation to

decide the issue of death of the deceased.

7. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is

allowed, setting aside the impugned order of the Commissioner

for Employees' Compensation dated 02.01.2016 passed in WC

Case No.27 of 2014 and the matter is remanded to the

Commissioner for Employees' Compensation and Assistant

Commissioner of Labour, Guntur, to decide the issue of death of

the deceased, after giving opportunity of hearing to both the

parties. There shall be no order as to costs of the appeal.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in

this appeal shall stand closed.

________________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 19.12.2022 siva

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.484 OF 2016

Date: 19.12.2022

siva