Smt. Chindam Pochamma And 6 Others vs R. Anjaiah And Anothedr
2021 Latest Caselaw 3501 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI


     CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1114 OF 2006


                         JUDGMENT

This Appeal is filed by the legal heirs of the deceased workman

against the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's

Compensation and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ranga

Reddy District-II, Hyderabad dismissing the Application of the

applicants in W.C.No.6 of 2005 by order dt.07.11.2006 without

awarding any compensation.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this Appeal are that one Chindam

Raju @ Rajaiah, aged about 30 years, was engaged as a driver of Tata

Sumo bearing No.AP35B 3636 and on 06.02.2005 at 3.30 P.M. it met

with an accident and the deceased died due to grievous injuries

sustained by him. The legal heirs of the deceased filed an Application

before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation seeking a

compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Opposite Party No.1, owner of the

Tata Sumo, appeared and stated that the Tata Sumo was given to a

mechanic for general repairs and servicing and that the deceased along

with other friends and co-workers who were employed in the nearby

petrol bunk to the mechanic shop, had taken the said vehicle and met

with an accident and died. It was stated that Opposite Party No.1 was

being falsely implicated in the said case stating that the deceased is

the employee of Opposite Party No.1. Thus, the Opposite Party No.1

categorically denied the employment of the deceased as a driver on

his Tata Sumo bearing No.AP35B 3636.

3. The insurance company has also filed a counter denying all the

averments made in the Application and specifically denied the

employment, the accident, the wages received by the deceased under

Opposite Party No.1.

4. Taking the same into consideration, the Commissioner has

rejected the Application and denied compensation to the petitioners

and this Appeal is filed against the said order of the Commissioner.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants, Sri J. Sreenivasa Rao,

submitted that immediately after the accident, a statement was given

by Opposite Party No.1 before the concerned authorities stating that

the deceased was working as his driver for the past 19 to 20 days and

that he was paying Rs.2,250/- per month, but later on, during the

course of the proceedings before the Commissioner for Workmen's

Compensation, he filed counter denying the employer and employee

relationship. The learned counsel submitted that the report before the

police should be considered as authentic and not the counter filed

before the Commissioner as it could be only an after though to avoid

any kind of liability arising out of accident. A copy of the same is also

filed before this Court at page 12 of the appeal papers.

6. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent, Sri Vijay Ashrit, as

well as the learned counsel for the insurance company-2nd respondent,

Sri V. Venkatarami Reddy, were also heard.

7. On going through the material papers, this Court finds that in

FIR No.23 of 2005, the statement of Sri Rathanam Anjaiah (Opposite

Party No.1) is recorded, wherein he stated that he owns a lorry and a

Tata Sumo and the Tata Sumo bears No.AP35B 3636 and that he had

engaged Chindam Raju @ Rangaiah, S/o Chandraiah, aged 35 years,

to drive the vehicle and that his monthly salary was Rs.2,250/-. He

also stated that on 05.02.2005 in the afternoon, the driver had said that

he wanted to go to Komaravelli temple for passengers and on his

instructions, the vehicle was taken and the accident was reported to

him on 06.02.2005. This statement was given before the police and it

was at the first instance after the accident and therefore, has to be

given credence over the counter filed subsequently denying the

employer-employee relationship. The Commissioner had clearly erred

in considering the counter filed by Opposite Party No.1 subsequently

denying the employer and employee relationship.

8. Since the employer and employee relationship is established by

the statement of Opposite Party No.1 before the police, the insurance

company is directed to pay compensation to the petitioners by taking

the wages at Rs.2,250/- per month as confirmed by Opposite Party

No.1.

9. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed. No

order as to costs.

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

closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

Date: 16.11.2021 Svv