Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Divisional Manager vs Yerramasu Satyavathi on 5 January, 2024
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.289 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under
Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for
brevity "the Act") aggrieved by the order dated 25.03.2019,
passed in W.C.No.26 of 2016 by the learned Commissioner for
Employees Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of
Labour, Narasaraopet. (for short "the Commissioner").
2. The Appellant herein is the Opposite Party No.2 and
the respondents No.1 to 3 herein are the applicants/claimants
and respondent No.4 is the Opposite Party No.1 in W.C No.26
of 2016. For sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter
referred to, as they are arrayed before the Commissioner.
3. The applicants have filed the impugned W.C.No.26 of
2016 before the Commissioner claiming compensation of
Rs.6,00,000/- in respect of death of the deceased/workman
Late Y.Narasimha Rao (hereinafter referred to as "the
deceased") under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in the
course of his employment in the Opposite Party No.1. the facts
of the case are that on 11.3.2011 while the deceased was doing
concrete work at the fields within Gopalapuram Panchayat
limits for installing high power tension electrical towers and he
was proceeding by walk by the side of one tractor, accidentally
iron concrete centering boxes were fell down on the head of the
deceased, as a result of which, he received head injury and
immediately he was shifted to the Life hospital, Guntur on
15.3.2011 for treatment, where he died under the treatment.
It was reported to Macherla Rural P.S., and a case in Crime
No.10 of 2011 was registered. Postmortem was also conducted
on the dead body of the deceased in GGH, Guntur. The
deceased was aged 21 years and was paid Rs.4,000/- p.m. as
salary by the time of his death. Hence, the claimants filed the
application claiming compensation against the Opposite
Parties.
4. The Opposite party No.1 filed his counter while
denying the averments made in the claim application, stated
that the applicants are put to strict proof of the same with
authenticated documentary evidence. The OP No.1 never
appointed the deceased at any point of time and there was no
employee and employer relationship between the deceased and
the OP No.1. The OP No.1 had insured the said work with the
OP No.2 and the same was in force by the time of said
incident. The policy covers all the risks during the policy
period. Hence only OP No.2 is liable to pay compensation, if
any awarded by the authority. Hence, prayed to dismiss the
application.
5. The Opposite Party No.2, filed counter and denied the
material averments made in the application. He denied that
the insurance policy was in the name of OP No.1 covering the
risk of the alleged accident. The claim has to be processed as
per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The
amount of compensation claimed by the applicants is highly
excessive without any basis. Hence, prayed to dismiss the
application.
6. During course of trial, on behalf of the applicants,
AW.1 was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked. On
behalf of the Opposite parties, RW.1 and RW.2 were examined
and got marked Ex.B1 was marked.
7. The learned Commissioner, after hearing on both
sides passed an order holding that both the Opposite Parties
are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation being the
Insured and Insurer. Hence directed the both parties to
deposit an amount of Rs.5,07,679/- by means of Demand
Draft drawn in favour of Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation, Guntur on State Bank of India, Guntur within
30 days from the date of receipt of the order and submit the
DD in the office for further action. Challenging the same, the
present civil miscellaneous appeal came to be filed by the
appellant/OP No.2.
8. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.2 has filed a Memo
stating that, in pursuance of the order of the Commissioner,
This Court vide order dated 06.08.2019, while ordered notice
before admission, held that entire compensation is deposited,
there shall be stay of operation of the impugned judgment.
Thereafter, this Court vide order dated 25.10.2019, has
permitted the petitioners No.1 to 3 to withdraw 50% of the
amount deposited to the credit of W.C No.26 of 2016 before the
authority under W.C. Act, without furnishing any security.
9. Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and Sri B. Parameswara Rao,
learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
10. On hearing, learned counsel for the appellant
contended that even though the deceased was considered as a
workman under OP No.1, the Insurance policy which is a
Marine cum Erection Insurance Policy does not covers the risk
of alleged workman for the reason, the Insured/OP No.1 paid
any additional premium to cover the risk of their employees.
He further submits that the Commissioner ought to have noted
that the employer/RW.1 categorically denied the employment
of the deceased and pleaded the deceased never worked in
their company and in that view of the matter the
Commissioner ought to have dismissed the claim petition and
the Commissioner wrongly interpreted the policy and observed
the deceased was a third party and Coolie, which is not
correct.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
contended that the deceased was worked as Coolie under OPP
No.1 and he died accidentally in the course of his employment
in the OP No.1 company premises. The OP No.2/appellant is
the Insurer for the said works. He further submits that the
deceased was aged 21 years and was paid Rs.4000/- p.m. as
salary by the time of his death. Hence, the Commissioner has
rightly concluded and held that both the Opposite Parties are
liable to pay compensation is just and proper. Therefore,
prayed to dismiss the appeal.
12. On perusing the impugned judgment, it is noticed
that, AAW.1, who is the wife of the deceased deposed that
since her husband died during the course of his employment
under OP No.1, being the Principal Employer and Insurer, both
the parties i.e., Opposite parties are liable to pay the
compensation. Due to sudden death of her husband, they lost
their dependency and livelihood and suffering a lot. It is also
observed from her cross-examination that she was not the eye
witness of the accident. She denied a suggestion that if any
compensation is payable, one OP No.2 alone is liable to pay the
compensation and the amount of compensation claimed by
them is highly excessive. She also denied that death of her
husband was not occurred during the course of his
employment under OP No.1 and hence OP No.2 is not liable to
pay any compensation.
13. As seen from the evidence of RW.1, he stated that
there was no employee and employer relationship between the
deceased and OP No.1. Therefore, in any event, the OP No.2 is
liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. His insurance
policy was in force by the time of said accident also. In his
cross examination, he admitted that when a company obtains
policy from the insurance company, that company is the
custodian of the policy.
14. As seen from the evidence of RW.2, he admitted that
OP No.1 in this case has obtained policy from OP No.2 at
Secunderabad by name "Marine Cum Erection Insurance
policy" issued too Project work of Sanjey Technical Pvt. Ltd.,
for erection of 132 KV SC/ST/Transmission line from 22 KV
Sub Station, Rentachintala to Macherla. As per the charge
sheet, the deceased in this case was working under the OP
No.1 and died accidentally due to iron concrete boxes fell down
on the head of the deceased. There was no workman
compensation coverage in the policy i.e., Ex.B1.
15. On perusing the material available on record, this
Court observed that the deceased was working as Coolie under
the OP No.1 at the time of accident. It is an admitted fact that
Ex.B1 policy was in force at the time of accident and the policy
is marine cum erection insurance policy which includes the
coverage of 3rd party damages/liability. But, as seen from the
Charge sheet, it is observed that, the deceased was working
under the OP No.1 and died accidentally due to iron concrete
boxes fell down on the head of the deceased, therefore there
was no workman compensation coverage. As the premium
does not cover the labourers/coolies, the appellant-Insurance
company is not liable to pay compensation for the death of the
deceased, who was already, a Coolie.
16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, it would be appropriate to direct the appellant to pay the
compensation as awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants and
recover the same from the Opposite Party No.1/respondent
No.4 herein in accordance with law. Therefore, the appellant is
directed to pay the amount which was kept with the primary
authority and also directed to recover the same from the
owner.
17. With the above observation, the Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
18. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous
applications shall stand closed.
______________________________
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 05 -01-2024
Gvl
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.289 of 2019
Date : 05 .01.2024
Gvl
