Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The vs Unknown on 24 June, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
C.M.A.No.1610 of 2008
JUDGMENT:-
The applicant, who is the 1st respondent/claimant herein
filed a claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen‟s
Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour-Kadapa,
claiming the compensation for the accident that occurred on
11.03.2007.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The case of the 1st respondent-applicant is that he was on
duty on an Auto bearing No.AP04-V-2990 along with their
villagers from Neela-Kantaraopet to Rayachoty market, to buy load
of vegetables. After purchasing the vegetables, they proceeded to
Mukkavaripalli Village, Kodur Mandal. While, on the way at about
7:30 A.M. on Rajampet to Rayachoty main road, the auto driver
was unable to control the vehicle, due to which the Auto turned
turtle and thereby he sustained injuries along with the other
inmates. Later, he was shifted to Government Hospital,
Rayachoty. Due to the said accident, he became disabled and was
unable to walk freely without the help of walking stick or with the
help of others.
4. On the complaint lodged before the Station House Officer,
Veeraballi Police Station, the police registered a case against the
Auto Driver vide Crime No.10 of 2007 under Sections 337, 338 of
Indian Penal Code (for short, „I.P.C.‟). As the accident occurred
during the course of employment, he filed a claim petition making
the 2nd respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle as the opposite
party No. 2. The United India Insurance Company Limited was
made as opposite party No.3. The opposite party No.3, being the
insurer is liable to indemnify and pay the compensation for the
opposite party No.2 under the provisions of the Workmen‟s
Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, „the Act‟).
5. At the time of the accident, the 1st respondent-claimant was
aged about 19 years and he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month as
the Auto driver. His claim was for Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three
lakhs fifty thousand only) with interest @ 12% per annum against
the opposite parties.
6. The opposite party No. 2, who is the owner of the vehicle
admitted that the applicant was working as the Auto driver since
one year from the date of accident. He admitted that he is paying
Rs.4,000/- per month as salary and batta. Doctor issued
disability certificate declaring the disability of the claimant as
40%.
7. On the other hand, the United India Insurance Company
Limited, filed counter affidavit, stating that there is no relationship
of employee and employer between the applicant and the opposite
party No. 2 and there are clear violations of the policy conditions.
Due to negligence of the driver, the accident had occurred. Hence,
the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.
8. Considering the evidence of both the applicant and the
opposite parties, the Commissioner has directed the opposite
parties to pay an amount of Rs.1,99,617/- (Rupees one lakh
ninety nine thousand six hundred and seventeen only) towards
compensation jointly and severally to the opposite parties.
9. Aggrieved by the Order dated 14.07.2008 in W.C.No.60 of
2007, the United India Insurance Company Limited-appellant filed
the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
10. When the matter is listed for „final hearing‟, learned counsel
for the appellant subsumed all the grounds in the memorandum
of grounds stating that the grounds do not involve any substantial
question of law under Section 30 of the Act. The grounds are
extracted as hereunder:-
"(a) Whether the Commissioner is correct in not deciding the
jural relationship of employee and employer between the 3rd
respondent herein and the claimant ?
(b) Whether the Commissioner is correct in not following the
averments as well as his admissions adduced as evidence and
thereby mulcting the liability on the appellant ?
(c) Whether the Commissioner is correct in not deciding the
point for consideration regarding relationship in between the
O.Ps. and claimant ?
(d) Whether the Commissioner is vested with any
power/jurisdiction to order pay and recover as was case with
M.V. Act ?
(e) Whether the Commissioner is correct not following the law
laid down in the decision of Apex Court in Mastan's case ?"
10. Learned counsel for the appellant raised a sole ground
stating that the driver of the vehicle is not having valid driving
license to drive transport vehicle and he possessed only license to
drive light motor vehicle.
11. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is no
more res integra as the Hon‟ble Apex Court in "Mukund Dewangan
Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited1" held that the driver, who
is holding driving license for the light Motor Vehicle is competent
to drive a „transport vehicle‟ or 'omnibus' with the "gross vehicle
weight" of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and also a
motor car or tractor or a road roller, the "unladen weight" of which
does not exceed 7500 kg.
12. On the conspectus of the aforesaid Judgment of the Hon‟ble
Apex Court, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant herein had no force.
13. Hence, I found no reasons to interfere with the Order dated
14.07.2008 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen‟s
Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour-Kadapa.
14. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No
costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________
JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Date: 24-06-2022
EPS
2017 (14) SCC 663
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
C.M.A.No.1610 of 2008
Date: 24-06-2022
EPS
