M/S. National Insurance Company ... vs Syed Rasheed 3 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1665 Tel

     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY


       CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.882 of 2015


JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved of

the order and decree dated 16.04.2015 in W.C.No.40 of 2011 on

the file of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation and

Assistant Commissioner of Labour-II, Hyderabad.

2. The facts of the Case are that the deceased, who was the son

of respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, was working as a Cleaner on the

Lorry bearing No.AP-16-TT-0028. On 15.08.2011 at about 13.35

hours, the deceased who was on duty, while he was showing side

to the Driver at a Garage, the driver of the said Lorry drove it in a

rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed against the

deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained severe multiple

injuries. He was immediately shifted to a nearby hospital, where

he was declared as brought dead. Therefore, the parents of the

deceased filed W.C.No.40 of 2011 before the Commissioner for

Employees' Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of

GAC, J CMA.No.882 of 2015

Labour-II, Hyderabad, claiming compensation, as the deceased

died during the course of employment.

3. The Commissioner, on examining the oral and documentary

evidence on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,88,739/-

along with interest @ 12% per annum from 16.09.2011, to be

jointly payable by opposite party Nos.1 and 3 before the

Commissioner i.e. the owner of the Lorry and the Insurance

Company. Aggrieved thereby, the Insurance Company is before

this Court.

4. Heard both sides and perused the record.

5. The main ground urged by the appellant-Insurance Company

is that the deceased is not a 'workman' under Section 21(N) of the

Workmen Compensation Act at the time of his death and that there

is no employee-employer relationship.

6. It is relevant to mention that the nature of accident is not at

all denied by the appellant. The only point involved in this appeal

GAC, J CMA.No.882 of 2015

is whether the deceased is a "workman" falling under the

Workmen Compensation Act or not.

7. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the evidence of

RW-1/Sri V.A.Padmakaran, who was working as Assistant

Manager of the appellant-Insurance Company. RW-1 admitted in

his cross-examination that the Insurance policy was in force as on

the date of the accident and he further admitted that as per Police

records, the deceased was working as a Cleaner on the Lorry

bearing No.AP-16-TT-0028. Thus, it is clear that the deceased was

working as a Cleaner on the crime lorry on the date of accident and

the accident had occurred during the course of his employment,

and therefore, the ground urged by the appellant-Insurance

Company that there is no relationship of employee-employer,

cannot be accepted. Hence, without going into the other issues,

the appeal is liable to be dismissed, as it is evident that the

deceased is the Cleaner of the Lorry in question and do come under

the definition of "Workman" under Section 21(N) of the Workmen

Compensation Act.

GAC, J CMA.No.882 of 2015

6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

7. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________________________ G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J

Date: 31.03.2022

ajr