The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Ganta Maheshwari
2023 Latest Caselaw 5097 AP

        THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

                      C.M.A.No.114 of 2020
JUDGMENT:

The Appellant herein filed this Appeal under Section 30 of

Workmen's Compensation Act, against the Order and Decree

dated 01.06.2019 passed in E.C.No.1 of 2013 by the

Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant

Commissioner of Labour, Nandyal, (in short 'the Tribunal')

whereby the Tribunal has granted a total compensation of

Rs.5,32,147/- for the death of the deceased in the accident that

was occurred on 16.01.2012.

2. The appellant herein is the Insurance Company/ 4th

opposite party; respondents 1 to 5 herein are the applicants and

respondents 6 to 8 herein are the opposite parties 1 to 3 before

the learned Tribunal.

3. The respondents 1 to 5 herein, who are applicants have

filed a claim petition before the tribunal alleging that on

16.01.2012 the deceased workman to attend the electrical

repair work of the opposite parties 2 and 3 as per instructions of

1st opposi8te party, when they reached near ATM Centre at

R.G.M.College, the motor cycle on which the deceased Ganta

Yella Subbaiah was travelling dashed a bullock cart, as the 2 Dr.KMR, J CMA.No.114 of 2020

bullock cart was not appeared to him due to light of opposite

coming vehicles. As a result of which the workman sustained

grievous injuries and shifted to the hospital for treatment,

where the doctors are declared that the deceased was died. A

case in Crime No.11 of 2012 was registered by Panyam Police

Station. Therefore, the applicants/ respondents 1 to 5

approached the appellant/ 4th opposite party with a request to

pay compensation, but in vain. Hence the applicants/

respondents 1 to 5 have approached the Tribunal.

4. The 6th respondent/ 1st opposite party before the

tribunal have filed counter denying all material allegations in

the claim petition and mainly contended that the applicants

have not added the Oriental Insurance Company as necessary

party, since the 6th respondents insured the policy bearing

dated 16.01.2012. Hence the said Insurance Company is

necessary and proper party to the proceedings. The

respondents/ applicants have to prove that the deceased was

having valid license to drive a motor cycle. As insures the lives

of his employees, the respondents/ applicants have to work out

their remedies if any against only the Insurance Company. The

close friend of the deceased by name Madasu Shashankudu has 3 Dr.KMR, J CMA.No.114 of 2020

introduced to claim compensation by foisting a false story as

though himself and his friend were going to the alleged spot

where there is said to be some defect. Therefore the claim is

liable to be dismissed.

5. The 7th respondent/ 2nd opposite party before the

tribunal have filed counter denying all material allegations in

the claim petition and mainly contended the 6th respondent/ 1st

opposite party has been rendering the services of the deceased

on contractual obligations as a contractor of the respondents 7

and 8. There was no failure of power supply or any electrical

work under repair on 16.01.2012 as alleged in the claim

petition. A copy of the daily log book maintained by Panyam Sub

Station relate to 16.01.2012 has been filed to establish the said

fact. The absence of any injury on the body of the Shashankudu

will clearly establish the fact that he was not a pillion rider and

he was introduced him into picture to help his friend. The

respondents 1 to 5 are not entitled to claim any compensation

from the respondents 7 and 8. If they have any claim they can

claim against the Insurance Company only. Therefore claim

petition is liable to be dismissed. The 8th respondent adopted

the counter of 7th respondent.

                                      4                               Dr.KMR, J
                                                          CMA.No.114 of 2020

6. Basing on the pleadings, the learned Tribunal has

framed the following issues viz.,

1) Whether the deceased was an employee as per the provisions of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 and he met with the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting into death?

2) What was the age of the deceased employee at the time of accident?

3) What were the wages paid to the deceased employee at the time of accident?

4) What is the amount of compensation payable?

5) Whether there is relationship between O.P.1 and O.P.2, 3?

6) Who are liable to pay compensation?

7. During the course of trial, the respondents 1 to 5/

applicants were examined as AW-1 and AW-2 and got marked

Ex.A1 to A10 and on behalf of the appellant/ 4th respondent,

was examined as RW-1 and got marked document as Ex.B1.

8. The Tribunal, after hearing on both sides passed an

order holding that the opposite parties/ respondents 6 to 7 and

appellant are jointly and severally held liable to pay the

compensation of Rs. 5,32,147/- to the applicants i.e

respondents 1 to 5. Assailing the same, the present C.M.A came

to be filed by the appellant/ 4th opposite party.

9. Heard Mr. N. Nageswara Rao, learned Counsel for the

Appellant and Mr. K. Venkateswarlu, learned Counsel for the 5 Dr.KMR, J CMA.No.114 of 2020

respondents 1 to 3 and 5. Mr. B.S.Reddy, learned counsel for

the 6th respondent.

10. During hearing learned counsel for the appellant

would contend that the learned Tribunal ought to have

considered Ex.A6, which is the Experience Certificate of the

deceased, issued by 1st opposite party because as per the said

Experience Certificate, the deceased was not under the

employment of 1st opposite party, which shows that the

deceased worked with 1st opposite party from 01.12.2008 to

14.01.2012 and whereas, the accident took place on

16.01.2012. The learned tribunal ought to have appreciated the

counter of 1st opposite party, wherein it was stated that on

16.01.2012, there is no failure of energy at all as alleged that

the deceased was going with his friend on a Motor Cycle to

attend the electrical repair work of opposite parties 2 and 3, as

per instructions of 1st opposite party when he met with an

accident. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any

compensation to the respondents 1 to 5 and requested to allow

the appeal.

                                  6                          Dr.KMR, J
                                                   CMA.No.114 of 2020

11. During hearing learned counsel for the respondents

reiterated the contents urged before the learned tribunal and

vehemently opposed to allow the appeal.

12. Perused the record.

13. In the instant case, on perusal of the record, the

tribunal came to a conclusion that the Ex.A1 to A10 is sufficient

to prove the claim of the applicants and further held that the

deceased Ganta Yella Subbaiah was an employee belongs to 1st

opposite party under the provisions of the Employees

Compensation Act, 1923, who died on 16.01.2012 during the

course of his employment under 1st opposite party to execute

the work of opposite party 2 and 3 as per directions of the 1st

opposite party. Therefore, the learned tribunal assessed the

compensation and passed an award of Rs. 5,32,147/- besides

cost of petition of Rs. 1,500/-. The opposite parties are directed

to pay the same jointly and severally.

14. Upon perusal of the material available on record

would show that accident was proved. Whereas it is contention

of the 1st opposite party, as per documents filed by the

applicants the deceased was worked under 1st opposite party up 7 Dr.KMR, J CMA.No.114 of 2020

to 14.01.2012, but whereas the deceased met with an accident

and died on 16.01.2012, which shows that the deceased was

not worked under 1st opposite party on the date of accident and

there is no relationship as employee and employer. It is

categorically stated by RW-1 in his cross examination that

Ex.B1 is in force from 16.01.2012 at 2.34 p.m till midnight of

15.02.2012. The deceased met with an accident on 16.01.2012

at 7.00 p.m. Therefore the policy is in force as on the date of

accident. In view of the same, the appellant cannot say that the

policy is not applicable.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the

compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is highly

excessive and exorbitant. As could be seen from the order of the

learned Tribunal would show that the ratio taken by the learned

tribunal while assessing the compensation is within the

parameters of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. The

learned Tribunal rightly assessed the value of compensation as

per law and needs no interference against its order on any

count and finds no impropriety or irregularity in the order.

Therefore, the C.M.A is liable to be dismissed.

                                 8                       Dr.KMR, J
                                               CMA.No.114 of 2020

16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case, perusing the record and considering the submissions of

the both the counsel, the C.M.A is dismissed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any,

pending shall stand closed.

________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

Date 18.10.2023.

KK
                          9                      Dr.KMR, J
                                       CMA.No.114 of 2020



     THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO




                C.M.A.No.114 of 2020




Date: 18.10.2023.

KK