Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt Vidavaluru Kavitha vs Pudi Umapathi on 12 January, 2024
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
C.M.A.No.50 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
The Appellants herein filed this Appeal under Section 30
of Workmen's Compensation Act, against the Order and Decree
dated 06.04.2017 passed in E.C.No.6 of 2015 by the Court of
the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant
Commissioner of Labour, Nellore, (in short 'the Tribunal')
whereby the Tribunal has granted a total compensation of
Rs.7,80,422/- for the death of the deceased in the accident that
was occurred on 15.06.2015.
2. The appellants herein are the applicants; respondents
1 to 3 herein are the opposite parties 1 to 3 before the learned
Tribunal.
3. The appellants/ applicants have filed a claim petition
before the tribunal alleging that on 15.06.2015 the deceased
workman as a driver bearing Registration No. AP 26 TC 9036,
during the course of his employment, proceed from Nellore to
Guntur and after reaching near to Market Yard on NH-5 at 3.00
p.m, the driver o the lorry bearing No. AP 31 TT 4839, who
drove the same in high speed applied sudden breaks resulting
accident and the deceased dashed rear side of the vehicle No.
2 Dr.KMR, J
AP 31 TT 4839 and sustained serious injuries and shifted to the
hospital for treatment, while undergoing treatment he died on
the same day at about 11.50 p.m. A case in Crime No.363 of
2015 was registered by Ongole Police Station. Therefore, the
appellants approached the opposite parties with a request to
pay compensation, but in vain. Hence the appellants/
applicants have approached the Tribunal.
4. The 2nd respondent before the tribunal have filed
counter denying all material averments made in the claim and
submitted that the deceased is not a workman and denied the
occurrence and cause of the accident. The accident occurred
due to the negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.
AP 31 TT 4839, but they were not parties to the claim petition.
The principal liability to pay compensation is of the employer
and award may be passed against the 1st respondent and that
the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the
appellants. Hence, requested to dismiss the claim petition.
5. Basing on the pleadings, the learned Tribunal has
framed the following issues viz.,
1) Whether the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the
accident on 15.06.2015 that arose in the course of employment?
3 Dr.KMR, J
2) If yes, who are liable to pay compensation to the dependents of the
deceased? And
3) What amount of compensation to be paid to the dependents of the
deceased?
6. During the course of trial, the 1st appellant was
examined as AW-1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A12 and none of
the witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents, and
marked Ex.B1 i.e True copy of Insurance Policy.
7. The Tribunal, after hearing on both sides passed an
order holding that the opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and
severally held liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 7,80,422/-
to the appellants. Assailing the same, the present C.M.A came
to be filed by the appellants.
8. Heard Mr. O. Uday Kumar, learned Counsel for the
Appellants and Mr. N. Ramakrishna, learned Counsel for the 2nd
respondent.
9. During hearing learned counsel for the appellant would
contend that the learned tribunal ought to have considered the
case of the appellants and at least grant reasonable
compensation to the appellants, but awarded meager
compensation. Further the learned tribunal failed to consider
4 Dr.KMR, J
interest amount on the awarded compensation as entitled by
the appellants without assigning any valid reasons. The learned
tribunal failed to award funeral expenses and other heads of
compensation for loss of future prospects and consortium etc.,
therefore, the appellants filed this C.M.A seeking to grant full
compensation. Hence the C.M.A is liable to be allowed.
10. During hearing learned counsel for the 2nd respondent
reiterated the contents urged before the learned tribunal and
vehemently opposed to allow the appeal and mainly contended
that the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to
the appellants.
11. Perused the record.
12. It is evident on the face of the record that the accident
took place during the course of employment as per Ex.A1 and
A2. Further the appellants claiming that the deceased was
drawing wage of Rs. 8,000/- per month, but no documentary
evidence was produced. Hence the learned tribunal taking into
consideration of wage of the deceased as per G.O.Ms.No.83,
dated 15.06.2015 and assessed the minimum wage is Rs.
7,631.75/-.
5 Dr.KMR, J
13. 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 deserves to be dismissed as there are no
grounds to grant excess compensation in the C.M.A.
14. 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, 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 12.01.2024.
KK
6 Dr.KMR, J
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
Date: 12.01.2024.
KK
