The vs Vaka Peddi Reddy And Others"
2023 Latest Caselaw 4116 AP

      THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

                    C.M.A.No.109 of 2021
JUDGMENT:

The Appellants herein filed this Appeal, against the Order

and Decree dated 30.05.2020 passed in E.C.No.27 of 2013 by

the Court of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation

and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tenali, Guntur District,

(in short "the learned Tribunal") whereby the learned Tribunal

has granted a total compensation of Rs.5,89,760/- for the death

of the deceased in the accident that was occurred on

26.04.2013.

2. The appellants herein are the applicants; respondents

herein are the opposite parties before the learned Tribunal.

3. The appellants herein have filed a claim petition before

the learned Tribunal alleging that on 26.04.2013 at about 11.30

a.m the deceased went to the fields of 1st respondent as coolie

for cutting of corn and she along with other coolies ply the

tractor bearing No. AP 07 BH 1871. During the course of

employment of the deceased under 1st respondent, she fell in

the machine i.e tractor due to wind her saree. As a result of

which, she sustained grievous injuries, later she died during

treating on 05.05.2013. A case in Crime No. 22 of 2013 was 2 Dr.KMR, J CMA.No.109 of 2021

registered. After death of the deceased, the appellants, who are

husband, daughter and son have approached the respondents

with a request to pay compensation, but in vain. Hence they

approached the learned Tribunal and filed claim petition.

4. The respondents have filed counter before the learned

Tribunal, denying all material averments made in the petition

and the 3rd respondent mainly contended that the appellants

have not furnished any documentary evidence with regard to

employment of the deceased and as to her wage. The 2nd

respondent has not paid any premium to cover the risk of

electrical and non-electrical accessories. Therefore the 3rd

respondent is not liable to indemnify the liability of the 2nd

respondent herein and that the claim petition is liable to be

dismissed.

5. Basing on the pleadings, the learned Tribunal has

framed the following issues viz.,

1) Whether the deceased Kuchipudi Mary Grace is an employee u/s.2(1)(dd) of the Employees Compensation Act at the time of her death? And whether the deceased had died as a result of accident arising out of and in the course of employment?

2) If so, what is the wage and age of the deceased at the time of her Death?

                                    3                        Dr.KMR, J
                                                   CMA.No.109 of 2021


      3) What is the amount of compensation?

4) Who are liable to pay compensation to the dependants of the Deceased?

6. During the course of trial, the 1st claimant is examined

himself as AW-1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 and RW-1 was

examined on behalf of the 3rd opposite party and got marked

Exs.B1 to B3.

7. The learned Tribunal, after hearing on both sides

passed an order holding that the 1st respondent is held liable to

pay the compensation of Rs. 5,89,760/- within 30 days from

the date of receipt of the said order. Assailing the same, the

present C.M.A came to be filed.

8. Heard Mr. M.Adam, learned Counsel for the Appellants

and Mr. Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

9. During hearing learned counsel for the appellants

would contend that the learned Tribunal failed to note that the

deceased though engaged by 1st respondent, but she along with

other coolies were made to work on the Tractor bearing No. AP

07 BH 1871 for corn cutting and unfortunately her saree fell in

the tractor, as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries 4 Dr.KMR, J CMA.No.109 of 2021

and while shifting to the hospital and while undergoing

treatment she died. Therefore the 2nd respondent, who is owner

of the Tractor as well as its insurer are jointly and severally

liable to pay the compensation. Further the learned Tribunal

failed to note that the income of the deceased as Rs. 5,660/- per

month, but the fact remains that in these hard days the daily

labour / coolie is getting more than Rs. 500/- per day. Therefore

the loss of income of the deceased which was taken into account

is very meager and if her actual income is taken into

consideration, the appellants are entitled for double the

compensation i.e Rs. 12,00,000/- rather than Rs. 6,00,000/-.

Therefore the C.M.A is liable to be allowed.

10. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the

appellants placed on record the decision of this Court in "Gunti

Devaiah and Others Vs. Vaka Peddi Reddy and Others"1

wherein it was held as follows:

"27. ....If the victim is hit by the trailer on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor, can it be said that the owner of the trailer will be liable for the compensation. But for the negligent driving of the prime mover or the tractor or motor vehicle, the accident could not have occurred. Therefore, whether the trailer is insured or

2004 ACJ 1881, 2003(6) ALT 300 5 Dr.KMR, J CMA.No.109 of 2021

not, the owner of the motor vehicle, prime mover or the tractor will be alone responsible for causing the accident and liable for compensation. If the trailer is insured, it cannot be construed as insurance of a motor vehicle making the owner of the trailer liable for compensation under the principle of tortuous liability. The insurance cover was made to claim damage to the vehicle and other connected unforeseen incidents, but if simply the trailer is not insured, it cannot be said that the owner of the tractor and its insurer are not liable on the ground that the trailer was not insured".

11. Per Contra, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent

would contend that this respondent is not liable to pay any

compensation to the appellants as the 2nd respondent has not

paid any premium to cover the risk of electrical and non-

electrical accessories. In support of their contention, he placed

on record the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in

"Branch Manager, National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs.

Ramalingegowda and Others"2, wherein it was held as

follows:

"9. The analogy taken by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is without any basis. Admittedly, the insurance company has issued motor vehicle policy to insure the tractor along with trailer attached to that and the said policy does not cover the liability of the Respondent owner of the tractor under Workmen's Compensation Act. Therefore, the liability of the insurer arises only in respect of

2011 LawSuit (Kar) 330 6 Dr.KMR, J CMA.No.109 of 2021

the injury, which is caused to the claimant in the course of his employment due to the operation of the tractor and trailer. The trasher which is used for separation of the paddy in the field, being an independent machine cannot be considered as an extension of the tractor and the injury suffered by the claimant while working in the said trasher cannot be considered as an injury due to the use of the tractor".

12. So also he relied on a decision of erstwhile High Court

of Andhra Pradesh in "National Insurance Company Ltd.,

Hyderabad vs. Smt. Sabia Begum and Others"3 wherein it

was held that unless employment of deceased which is disputed

is proved by independent evidence, the claimants are not

entitled for compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act.

Hence, requested to dismiss the appeal.

13. Perused the record.

14. As could be seen from the material on record, it is

evident as per Ex.A1 FIR would show that the deceased was

working coolie under 1st respondent under Section 2(1)(dd) of

the Employees Compensation Act and that she met with an

accident on 26.04.2013 and died later during the course of her

2005 (6) ALT 610 (S.B) 7 Dr.KMR, J CMA.No.109 of 2021

employment as required under section 3(1) of the Employees

Compensation Act. The contents of Ex.A6 corroborates with the

evidence of AW-1. Further the learned Tribunal fixed the age

basing on the Postmortem Report and fixed minimum wage of

Rs. 5,660/- per month. So also, the appellants contended that

the 1st respondent as the employer of the deceased, 2nd

respondent as Tractor Owner and 3rd respondent as the Insurer

are liable to pay compensation to the appellants, but as the

accessories to the tractor are not insured and that it was held

that 1st respondent alone is liable to pay compensation. It is the

contention of the 3rd respondent that the appellants have not

filed any documentary evidence to show that the deceased

worked as coolie and earning Rs. 250/- per day and the

deceased is not employed by 2nd respondent and does not comes

under the purview of Workmen Compensation Act and hence

the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.

Further the 2nd respondent has not paid premium to cover the

risk of electrical/ non electrical accessories, hence liability of

paying compensation by the 3rd respondent does not arise. The

decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants

are no way helpful in the instant case.

                                8                          Dr.KMR, J
                                                 CMA.No.109 of 2021

15. After close scrutiny of the documents and also Award

of the learned Tribunal, this Court finds no merit in the

argument of the appellants. The learned Tribunal also taken

into consideration the said facts, rightly answered the all the

issues and assessed the value of the damage under proper

heads and passed reasoned order. Therefore this Court

warrants no interference against the order of the learned

Tribunal.

16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case, perusing the record and considering the submissions of

the both the counsel, this Court finds no merit in the argument

of the appellants, hence the appeal is deserves to be dismissed,

as the learned Tribunal rightly assessed the value of the

compensation and passed award in right perspective. Therefore,

there is no impropriety or illegality in the order of the learned

Tribunal.

17. Accordingly, the C.M.A is dismissed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

                                 9                       Dr.KMR, J
                                               CMA.No.109 of 2021

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any,

pending shall stand closed.

________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

Date 08.09.2023.

KK
                             10                     Dr.KMR, J
                                          CMA.No.109 of 2021



     THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO




                   C.M.A.No.109 of 2021




Date:08.09.2023.

KK