Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Vice Chancellor vs Smt. Mekala Mariamma 4 Others on 6 November, 2024
1
APHC010009222015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3460]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 98/2015
Between:
The Vice Chancellor ...APPELLANT
AND
Smt Mekala Mariamma 4 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GUDI SRINIVASU
2. M RAVINDRA
The Court made the following:
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
C.M.A.No.98 of 2015
JUDGMENT:
The present appeal is filed under Section 30 of the
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 questioning the order
dated 22.09.2014 in E.C.Case No.25 of 2011 passed by the
Commissioner for Employees Compensation Act-cum-
Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tenali.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
One Mekala Ramesh came down to Vaddeswaram village
for his livelihood as mason worker and used to earn Rs.400/- to
Rs.500/- per day. He was engaged by Vemuri
Veeraiah/O.P.No.2/Contractor and was attending to certain
construction work at computer center building in the campus of
O.P.No.1/University/Appellant. On 22.02.2011 at about 5.00 p.m.
while the deceased was working in the computer center building,
he fell down from the second floor of the building and sustained
grievous head injuries and other multiple injuries. Immediately,
the deceased was shifted to Government General Hospital,
Vijayawada and for better treatment, he was shifted to
Government General Hospital, Guntur.
3. While undergoing treatment, the deceased died on
23.02.2011 at Government General Hospital, Guntur. The
brother of the deceased gave a complaint to the Station House
Officer, Tadepalli and the same was registered as Cr.No.31 of
2011 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Though the applicants
approached O.P.Nos.1 and 2/University and Contractor seeking
compensation, no amount was paid. It was in that context, the
claim for compensation was filed for Rs.10 lakhs with interest at
12% as the deceased was aged about 21 years and was earning
Rs.400/- to Rs.500/- per day.
4. O.P.No.1/University/Appellant filed their counter stating that
construction of college buildings was being undertaken for the
benefit of students and the Koneru Lakshmaiah Educational
Foundation (Society) would supply necessary construction
materials i.e. iron, cement, bricks and wood etc., to the
contractors and by fixing lumpsum amount towards manual coolie
work to the contractors and in turn the said contractor used to pay
the amount to the workers engaged by the contractor. It was their
plea that they do not have any supervision or control over the
employees engaged by the contractor. It was also pleaded that
O.P.No.1 would obtain policies under Workmen's Compensation
Act for any contract workers engaged by the said contractor from
time to time and in this case also the O.P.No.1 obtained policy
under the Act bearing No.462/100/48/2010/3185 dated
07.03.2010 for the said contract works and the same is valid from
08.03.2010 to 09.03.2011.
5. It was also pleaded that the deceased was never engaged
by O.P.No.1/University and that O.P.No.2/Contractor was
entrusted with the work of construction on 15.02.2010 and had
entered into an MOU to that effect. It was also pleaded that the
deceased was engaged by O.P.No.2 as part time casual worker
on 21.02.2011 for mason works and the deceased was working
from 2.00 p.m. onwards as part time worker on daily wage basis
@ Rs.200/- under O.P.No.2/contractor in the college. It was also
admitted that the deceased while working in the campus of
O.P.No.1/University fell down from the second floor of the building
and received injuries and had expired on 23.03.2011 at
Government General Hospital, Guntur while undergoing
treatment. It was also pleaded that on humanitarian conditions,
O.P.No.1/University had paid an amount of Rs.75,000/- to the
family members i.e. wife and parents of the deceased.
6. O.P.No.2/Contractor filed his counter in tune with the
counter filed by O.P.No.1. O.P.No.2 admitted that the deceased
was working as part time casual labour and on 22.02.2011, the
deceased while working as part time worker fell down from the
second floor of the building and had expired while undergoing
treatment at Government General Hospital, Guntur on
23.02.2011. It was pleaded that O.P.No.1 had paid an amount of
Rs.50,000/- towards compensation to the applicants and
Rs.7,500/- towards funeral expenses. It was also pleaded that
O.P.No.1/University had obtained insurance policy for workmen
as referred supra on 07.03.2010 which was in vogue as on the
date of the incident. O.P.No.2/Contractor also pleaded that the
death of the deceased was covered under the said policy and the
applicants are entitled for compensation only from the insurance
company i.e. O.P.No.3.
7. O.P.No.3/Insurance company filed his counter on expected
lines denying that the deceased was working under
O.P.No.1/University and disputed the occurrence of the accident
as there was no work being undertaken in the campus of
O.P.No.1 due to cyclone on the alleged date of incident. It was
also pleaded that the policy covers material damages but does
not cover the liability, injury or death of a person and therefore, no
claim can be sought from O.P.No.3/insurance company.
8. The Commissioner framed following issues for
consideration:
(1)Whether the applicants are entitled for compensation as
claimed by the applicants?
(2) Who are liable to pay compensation amount?
(3) To what relief the applicants are entitled to?
9. In the course of trial, the applicant No.1 examined as P.W.1
and she got marked Exs.A.1 to A.8. On behalf of O.P.Nos.1 and
2, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R.1 to 6 were marked.
On behalf of O.P.No.3/insurance company, no oral or
documentary evidence was let in. The Commissioner, after
taking into consideration the evidence and the submissions made
by respective parties, dismissed the claim against O.P.Nos.2 and
3 and O.P.No.1/University was directed to deposit an amount of
Rs.6,38,035/- before the Commissioner of Employees
Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour by way of
Demand Draft within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
Aggrieved by the same, O.P.No.1/University filed the present
appeal.
10. Heard Sri Madhavarao Nalluri, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri M.Ravindran and Gudi Srinivas, learned
counsel for the respondents.
11. At the outset, it must be stated that though there is no
appearance on behalf of the claimants, the entitlement of the
amount awarded by the Commissioner is not in dispute and the
only question in this appeal is whether
O.P.No.1/University/Appellant is liable to pay compensation or
O.P.No.3/Insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.
12. Having heard the respective counsel, the following
substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal.
The Substantial question of law.
(1) Whether the order of the Commissioner suffers from
perverse finding on the evidence available on record?
13. Though there are plethora of judgments on the scope of
interference when findings are perverse, the reasoning given by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.R.Tewari Vs Union of India (2013
(6) SCC 602) at paragraph 30 is extracted below:
" The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be
perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or
excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration
irrelevant/inadmissible material. The finding may also be
said to be perverse if it is "against the weight of evidence", or
if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from
the vice of irrationality. If a decision is arrived at on the basis
of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no
reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be
perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is
acceptable and which could be relied upon, the conclusions
would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not
be interfered with. (Vide: Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi
Administration, AIR 1984 SC 1805; Kuldeep Singh v.
Commissioner of Police & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 677; Gamini
Bala Koteswara Rao & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh thr.
Secretary, AIR 2010 SC 589; and Babu v. State of Kerala,
(2010) 9 SCC 189)."
14. In the light of the above, it has to be seen if the findings of
the commissioner are perverse. The Commissioner disbelieved
the evidence of O.P.No.2/Contractor and treated the deceased as
an employee of the O.P.No.1/University/Appellant. Since, the
policy covers only employees engaged performing work for the
insured through a contractor and not those directly engaged by
the O.P.No.1/University/Appellant.
15. The specific plea as stated above of O.P.No.2/Contractor is
that the deceased was engaged under him and in support of his
plea, Exs.R.4 to R.6 were marked. Ex.R.4 is the wage register for
the period 01.06.2010 to 31.03.2011, Ex.R.5 is wage register for
the same period and Ex.R.6 is the copy of MOU dated
01.04.2010. Register of wages which is marked as Ex.R.4 is
required to be maintained under Minimum Wages Act and Rules,
1960 and in Ex.R.4, the name of the deceased is shown as part
time worker working from 2.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. at Sl.No.3.
16. Similarly, Ex.R.5 Attendance Register for the month of
February, 2011 would show that the deceased had attended the
work on the days as mentioned in the pleadings of
O.P.No.2/Contractor. The examination of Exs.R.4 to R.6 Books
would indicate that they are regularly maintained and there is
nothing to doubt the genuineness of Exs.R.4 and R.5. Ex.R.6 is
the MOU between O.P.Nos.1 and 2 and in the MOU, the
agreement was with regard to labour charges only.
17. Apart from the documentary evidence referred above, the
O.P.No.2/Contractor was also examined as R.W.2 and he
reiterated his earlier pleadings and nothing much is elicited in the
cross examination to doubt the correctness.
18. On consideration of the evidence of the claimants, the
stand of O.P.No.1/University read along with MOU and the
insurance policy, the plea and deposition of R.W.2./O.P.No.2 read
with conjunction with Exs.R.4 and R.5 would establish beyond
doubt that the deceased was working as a part time employee
under O.P.No.2/Contractor.
19. Even though there was no evidence on behalf of the
Insurance Company, the Commissioner, on a manifest
misreading of evidence, disbelieved the plea that the deceased
was engaged by the O.P.No.2/University/Appellant. In the light of
the evidence, there was plausibility to sustain the view taken by
the commissioner. As the evidence on record clearly establishes
beyond doubt that the deceased was employed under
O.P.No.2/Contractor and the insurance company shall be liable to
pay the amount towards compensation as per the insurance
policy.
20. Result: The Appeal is therefore allowed and the order
of the Commissioner dated 22.09.2014 is set aside.
21. Notwithstanding the outcome of this order, as there is no
dispute with regard to entitlement of compensation to the
claimants, the compensation amount which is lying before the
Commissioner shall forthwith be released to the claimants. As
there was no appearance for the claimants in the present appeal
and considering the delay of 14 years from the date of the tragic
incident, it may be difficult to know about the whereabouts of the
claimants.
22. Therefore, to ensure that the compensation amount
reaches out to the claimants, the state legal services authority
shall coordinate with the concerned and intimate the claimants
about the outcome of the appeal and ensure that the
compensation is deposited in the Aadhar linked bank account of
the claimants.
23. The Insurance company shall reimburse the amounts so
disbursed to the O.P.No.1/University pursuant to the impugned
order. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: 06 .11.2024
KLP
