Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Bandi Chandraiah on 9 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
C.M.A.Nos. 216 and 217 of 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT:
C.M.A.No.216 of 2023 has been filed under Section 30 of
Workmen's Compensation Act, against the Order and Decree
dated 31.07.2008 passed in W.C.No.111 of 2005 by the Court of
the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa, (in short 'the Tribunal')
whereby the Tribunal has granted a total compensation of
Rs.2,53,099/- for the death of the deceased Bandi
Subhadramma in the accident that was occurred on
29.01.2005.
C.M.A.No.217 of 2023 has been filed under Section 30 of
Workmen's Compensation Act, against the Order and Decree
dated 31.07.2008 passed in W.C.No.149 of 2005 by the Court of
the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa, (in short 'the Tribunal')
whereby the Tribunal has granted a total compensation of
Rs.2,53,099/- for the death of the deceased Uppatholla
Ramadevi in the accident that was occurred on 29.01.2005.
2. Since the facts and issue involved in all the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeals, I find it expedient to decide these
matters by a Common Judgment.
2 Dr.KMR, J
CMA.No.216 of 2023 and batch
3. The appellant herein is the 2nd opposite party; the
respondents 1 to 3 herein are the applicants; 4th respondent
herein is the 1st opposite party before the tribunal.
4. For the sake of convenience, C.M.A.No.216 of 2023 is
taken into consideration as a leading case.
5. The claim of the respondents 1 to 3/ claimants
claiming compensation for the death of the deceased, who died
in a motor vehicle accident on 29.01.2005, which took place at
tank bund, Cherukuvandlaplli Village, T.Sundupalli Mandal,
Kadapa District, due to mud slide fell down on the deceased,
while discharging her duties as a coolie for the Tractor under
the employment of 4th respondent/1st opposite party, which is
insured with the appellant herein. When the deceased was
digging the earth, the big earth bounder was fallen upon them
and the deceased sustained grievous injuries on their body and
subsequently died. A case in Crime No.1 of 2005 under Section
174 of Cr.P.C has been registered by T. Sundupalli Police
Station. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 have approached the
appellant and 4th respondent with a request to pay
compensation, but in vain. Hence the respondents 1 to 3 have
approached the Tribunal.
3 Dr.KMR, J
CMA.No.216 of 2023 and batch
6. The appellant herein i.e2nd opposite party before the
tribunal have filed counter denying all material averments made
in the claim and submitted that the 4th respondent has been
declared as insolvent and that there is a bar in claiming
indemnification of liability from the appellant in the absence of
the same as observed by the learned Commissioner. There is no
iota of evidence to show that the tractor and trailor of the 4th
respondent was involved in the accident, so also, there is
evidence to show that the deceased was engaged as coolie by the
4th respondent, as such, the relationship of employee and
employer is absent. The insurance policy issued to the subject
vehicle is for agricultural purpose, but whereas the vehicle was
used for transportation of manure, which is a commercial
purpose. No premium amount is paid to cover the risk of the
deceased or any other person, except paid only for the driver.
Therefore the appellant herein is not liable to pay any amount to
the respondents 1 to 3 and requested to dismiss the same.
7. Basing on the pleadings, the learned Tribunal has
framed the following issues viz.,
1) Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of
Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 and he was died out of and in the
course of his employment under O.P.No.1 resulting into his death?
2) What was the age of the deceased at the time of accident?
4 Dr.KMR, J
CMA.No.216 of 2023 and batch
3) What was the wages paid to the deceased at the time of accident?
4) What is the quantum of compensation payable to the applicants>
5) Who are liable to pay the compensation?
8. During the course of trial, the respondents 1 to 3 were
examined as AW-1 and 2 and got marked Ex.A1 to A5 and none
of the witnesses were examined and no documents have been
marked on behalf of the appellant.
9. The tribunal after hearing both sides directed the
appellant and 4th respondent i.e opposite parties 1 and 2 are
jointly and severally liable to pay compensation besides Stamp
Duty within 30 days. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil
Miscellaneous Appeals came to be filed.
10. Heard Mr. K.V.Seshagiri Rao, learned Counsel for the
Appellant and Mr. K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned Counsel for
the respondents 1 to 3.
11. During hearing learned counsel for the appellant
would contend that the learned tribunal ought to have seen that
the risk of the deceased was not covered as the deceased was
employed as labourer and the policy did not cover the risk of the
labourer. The tribunal ought to have seen that the death had
occurred due to the sand falling on the deceased and not due to
user of the vehicle. Therefore the appellant could not be made
5 Dr.KMR, J
CMA.No.216 of 2023 and batch
liable to pay the compensation. The tribunal failed to consider
the argument of the appellant and simply awarded
compensation is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence the
impugned Award is liable to be set aside.
12. During hearing learned counsel for the respondents 1
to 3 reiterated the contents urged before the learned tribunal
and vehemently opposed to allow the appeal and mainly
contended that the appellant and 4th respondent herein are
liable to pay any compensation to the respondents 1 to 3.
Learned Tribunal rightly held the issues in right perspective and
that the appellant is not entitled to claim any relief in this writ
petition.
13. Perused the record.
14. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was died due
to accident, while they were engaged as coolies to the said
Tractor belonging to the 4th respondent and while on the duty,
the deceased loading and unloading the mud for the said tractor
trailor at tank bund, Cherukuvandlaplli Village, T.Sundupalli
Mandal on 29.01.2005 due to big soil bounder was fallen upon
them, as a result of which they succumbed to injuries and died.
Therefore it is proved that the deceased was a coolie and was a
6 Dr.KMR, J
CMA.No.216 of 2023 and batch
workman. Further the learned tribunal taking into
consideration of wage of the deceased as per G.O.Ms.No.81,
dated 29.03.2001 employment in private motor transport for
loading and unloading coolie/ driver has been assessed the
minimum wage at Rs. 2568.75 ps. Further the premium was
collected on basic premium including covers the risk of coolies
and there is a relationship between the employee and employer
between the policy holder i.e 4th respondent/ 1st opposite party
and the deceased. Therefore, there is no force in the argument
of learned counsel for the appellant.
15. 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 Workman's 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 deserves to be dismissed as there are no
grounds to grant excess compensation in the C.M.A.
16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, perusing the record and considering the submissions of
7 Dr.KMR, J
CMA.No.216 of 2023 and batch
the both the counsel, both C.M.As are dismissed, while
permitting the appellants to withdraw the compensation
amount as per their respective ratio by submitting proper
application before the tribunal in accordance with law. 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: 09.02.2024.
KK
8 Dr.KMR, J
CMA.No.216 of 2023 and batch
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
C.M.A.Nos. 216 and 217 of 2023
Date: 09.02.2024.
KK
