Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
P. Prasad vs C.V. Ramana Reddy on 8 November, 2024
APHC010501302010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3460]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 857/2010
Between:
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ...APPELLANT
AND
Kutakundla Madhan Mohan Reddy and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. T V P SAI VIHARI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. L J VEERA REDDY
The Court made the following:
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.857 of 2010
JUDGMENT:
1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section
30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 questioning the Award
passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and the
Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa in W.C.No.123 of 2008, dated
18.07.2009.
2. The facts leading to the present Appeal are, as under:-
The Claimant was working as a Coolie to the Tractor-Trailer
bearing Nos.AP04-G-2662 and AP04-G-2663 belonging to
O.P.No.1/Owner. The Tractor-Trailer is insured with O.P.No.2 under
Policy No.611200/31/07/01/00003420 valid from 18.11.2007 to
17.11.2007. On 29.03.2008, the Claimant was engaged along with
other coolies by O.P.No.1 for loading and unloading the sand in the
Tractor-Trailer for the purpose of formation of a road to his house with
his own funds.
3. As instructed, the Claimant and three other coolies went to
Thummalapalli River and loaded the sand in the Tractor-Trailer and
were proceeded to Kotha Sangatipalli Village by sitting on the load of
sand. When the Tractor-Trailer reached near Thummaluru Village
Electrical Substation, the driver of the vehicle drove the vehicle in a
rash and negligent manner in high speed and applied sudden brakes,
resulting which, the Claimant fell down from the Tractor-Trailer and the
tyre of the Tractor-Trailer ran over the waist and right leg of the
Claimant.
4. The Claimant sustained injury over his left elbow and dislocation
of the spinal cord, fracture of right tibia and fracture of right pelvis bone.
Immediately, the Claimant was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa,
where he took treatment for a period of one week and after discharge
from the said hospital, the claimant took treatment from Dr. G. Venkata
Subbaiah, Orthopedic, Kadapa for a period of one week as inpatient
and his right leg tibia was operated by inserting plate and screws and
he spent Rs.40,000/- towards his medicines, treatment and extra
nourishment. The Claimant thereafter took treatment from
Dr. T. Dinakar Reddy, M.S., Urologist, Kadapa, for Urethra. Due to
fracture of right tibia, pelvis bone, he also took treatment from
Dr. G. Venkata Subbaiah, as an outpatient for a period of eight months.
5. The Pendlimarri Police registered a case in Crime No.42/2008
under Sections 337 and 338 of I.P.C against the driver. In view of the
accident, the right leg of the Claimant was shortened and the Claimant
was suffering from inexplicable pain. Hence the application was filed
seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.
6. The O.P.No.1 i.e. owner of the Tractor was set ex parte.
7. The O.P.No.2 i.e. Insurance Company, which filed its Counter
denying the manner of the accident and contended that the policy was
violated as O.P.No.1 did not pay premium to cover the risk of Coolie
under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It was also pleaded that the
O.P.No.1 had paid premium only to cover the risk of driver only.
8. During the course of enquiry, the Claimant examined himself as
A.W.1 and Dr.G. Venkata Subbaiah as A.W.2 and got marked
Exs.A1 to A9. On behalf of the Insurance Company/O.P.No.2, R.W.1
was examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked.
9. The Commissioner framed the following issues for consideration:
1. Whether the applicant was a workman as per the
provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and
he met with accident arising out of and in course of his
employment resulting into permanent disability.
2. What was the age of the applicant at the time of the
accident?
3. What were the wages paid to the applicant workmen
at the time of accident?
4. What is the amount of compensation payable?
5. Who are liable to pay the compensation?
10. After considering the respective contentions, the Commissioner
awarded compensation of Rs.1,97,342/- in view of the disability of the
Claimant at 40% as certified by A.W.2 in Ex.A.4. Aggrieved thereby, the
present Appeal is filed.
11. Heard Sri. T.V.P. Sai Vihari, learned counsel for the Appellant and
Sri. L.J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the Respondents.
12. The primary contention of the counsel for the Appellant is that
Coolie and Casual Labours were not covered under the policy unless a
specific premium is paid to cover the risk. The insurance policy was
marked as Ex.B.1 as mentioned above. The insurance policy indicates
that the premium was paid to the Tractor and Trailor and also to the
driver-cum-owner. The Workmen's Compensation was also covers
compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act to one
employee.
13. Therefore, when the policy is specifically provides for
compensation to the employees, the Coolie/Daily Wage Employee is
also covered under the term 'Employee' and therefore, the Order of the
Commissioner cannot be faulted with.
14. Therefore, this Court did not find any merits in the Appeal and
the same is liable to be rejected.
15. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Application is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications,
if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: 08.11.2024
IS
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.857 of 2010
Date: 08.11.2024
IS
