United India Insurance Company ... vs Smt. G. Vanaja 3 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 2190 Tel

  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

     CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 316 of 2007

JUDGMENT:

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the insurance

company against order dated 08.01.2007 passed by the

Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant

Commissioner of Labour-1, Hyderabad, in W.C.No.2 of 2005

filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are the wife and parents of

the deceased Venkataiah, claiming a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-

towards compensation.

There is no dispute that the said Venkataiah was employed

as driver of Auto bearing No. AP09 V 9808 belonging to

respondent No.4 herein and he died on 06.11.2004 due to heart

attack. In the said W.C., after perusing the entire material on

record, the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.3,07,202/- to

respondent Nos.1 to 3 towards compensation with the direction to

the appellant and respondent No.4 to deposit the said amount

within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing

which, interest @12% per annum shall be paid from the date of

the accident.

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the said

Venkataiah was already suffering from various ailments and his CKR, J

death is only on account of cumulative effect of the same, though

the same is termed as heart attack, as such, no liability can be

fastened on the appellant.

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 would assert

that there is no description in the insurance policy with regard to

the death being caused on account of accumulated stress or

pre-existing ailments. He would also assert that as the death

occurred in the course of employment, the appellant cannot evade

the liability undertaken on behalf of the owner of the offending

vehicle.

The only question requires to be considered is whether

there was any injury/death occurred in the course of employment.

It is to be noted that there is no provision mentioned in the

insurance policy that only in certain circumstances, the insurance

policy would cover the risk, as rightly asserted by the learned

counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. In view of the same, the

contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that no

liability can be fastened on the appellant is liable to be rejected,

as, the same has no merit. It is not in dispute that the insurance

policy does not contain the nature of reasons being advanced by

the learned counsel for the appellant as excepted matters. There

being no dispute that the death of the said Venkataiah occurred in CKR, J

the course of employment, the appellant cannot evade the liability

undertaken on behalf of respondent No.4 under the insurance

policy.

In those circumstances, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is

dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 23rd JULY, 2021.

kvni