The National Insurance Company ... vs D. Bal Reddy And 2 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3472 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

      CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1054 OF 2006

JUDGMENT:

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by Opposite

Party No.2-Insurance Company challenging the Award of the

Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant

Commissioner of Labour-III, Hyderabad, in W.C. No.43 of 2005,

dated 21.08.2006.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this Appeal are that one Sri

D. Srinivas Reddy died in an accident while working as driver of a

tractor bearing No.AP28V-2243. The parents of the deceased filed

WC No.43 of 2005 before the learned Commissioner under

Workmen's Compensation Act seeking compensation of

Rs.3,00,000/-. The deceased was 25 years of age at the time of

accident. The opposite party No.1, who was the owner of the tractor,

admitted the deceased as driver of his tractor and also admitted that

the deceased died during the course of employment with him. The

Opposite Party No.2/Insurance Company denied the employee and

employer relationship of the opposite party No.1 and the deceased and

also denied that the deceased is having a valid driving licence at the

time of accident. After considering the entire evidence produced

before him, the learned Commissioner has awarded a sum of

Rs.3,23,351/- towards compensation. Aggrieved by the said award,

the insurance company filed the present appeal.

3. Heard Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the

appellant/insurance company and Sri G. Narender Reddy, learned

counsel for the respondents 1 & 2/applicants. Perused the material

available on record.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company

submits that the applicants have not proved that the deceased was

working with the Opposite Party No.1 or that the wages paid by the

Opposite Party No.1 by filing any authentic evidence. He submitted

that in the FIR, the father of the deceased has mentioned that the

deceased has taken the keys of the tractor from Mr. Mallikarjun i.e.,

the owner of the vehicle, but not as a driver. He further submitted that

the deceased has driven the tractor at the time of accident, but he was

not working as a driver. He further submits that the driving licence of

the deceased was not filed by the applicants and therefore, the

presumption to be drawn is that he did not have a licence and in such

circumstances, the insurance company is not liable to pay the

compensation. He further submits that though the applicants have

claimed only a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, the learned Commissioner has

granted Rs.3,24,499/-, which is against the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in many cases holding that the award

cannot exceed the claim.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company

further submits that there was no proof of the deceased holding any

driving licence much less having a licence to drive the tractor. He

also relied upon the statement of the deceased's father in FIR wherein

he has stated that the key was taken from the owner of the tractor and

therefore, even according to the father of the deceased, he was not

working as a driver of the vehicle. Therefore, according to him,

employee and employer relationship has not been claimed by the

claimants at the first opportunity. Therefore, according to him,

compensation awarded by the Commissioner is not justified.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2/applicants

submits that the opposite party No.1, who is the owner of the vehicle

has admitted the employment of the deceased, therefore, the employee

and employer relationship is very much proved and also that the

driving licence of the deceased was lost at the time of accident. He

placed reliance upon the findings of the learned Commissioner in the

award.

7. Having regard to the rival contentions raised by both the parties

and also the material placed on record, this Court finds that the

complaint before the concerned police was given immediately after

the accident and in the FIR, the father of the deceased has stated that

his son had taken the key from the owner of the tractor and was

driving the tractor when the accident has occurred. However, by this

statement of the father of the deceased, it also cannot be presumed

that the deceased was not working as driver of the tractor. The owner

of the vehicle has confirmed before learned Commissioner that the

deceased was working as his driver and this statement has not been

rebutted by the appellant herein with any evidence to the contrary.

Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to differ with the

finding of the Commissioner on the employee and employer

relationship between the owner of the vehicle and the deceased being

established.

8. As regards the driving licence is concerned, the deceased was

25 years of age at the time of accident and therefore, it cannot be said

that he might not have obtained the licence for driving the vehicle.

The contention that the driving licence was lost at the time of accident

has not been disproved and hence, this Court does not find any reason

to interfere with the award passed by the learned Commissioner.

9. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

No order as to costs.

10. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this CMA shall also

stand dismissed.

___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 15.11.2021 Isn