The United India Insurance ... vs Bodukuri Sammaiah And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 4104 Tel

         HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

         CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.759 of 2013

JUDGMENT:

1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed

against order dated 27.03.2006 in W.C.No.30 of 1997 on the file of the

Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant

Commissioner of Labour, Warangal-I, (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Commissioner'). The said case was filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2

herein seeking compensation for death of one Badukuri Ganesh

(hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') in an accident that occurred on

14.06.1996 and the same was allowed by the Commissioner granting

compensation of Rs.1,10,005/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed at the instance of the insurance

company i.e., opposite party No.2 before the Commissioner.

2. The appellant herein is opposite party No.2, respondent Nos.1

and 2 herein are applicants and respondent No.3 herein is opposite

party No.1 before the Commissioner. For the sake of convenience, the

parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the

Commissioner.

3. The claim petition is filed by the applicants, who are father and

mother of the deceased seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for

MGP,J CMA_759_2013

death of the deceased on 14.06.1996. According to the applicants, the

deceased was working as cleaner on the lorry bearing No. APO 3242

under the employment of opposite party No.1. While so, on

14.06.1996, the deceased along with the driver of the vehicle went to

Keshavapatnam on the instructions of opposite party No.1. However,

opposite party No.1 sent information to the applicants that their son

was suffering from vomiting, as such he was shifted to MGM Hospital,

Warangal, where he died. According to the applicants, the deceased

was aged about 22 years, at the time of incident and he was working

as cleaner. He was being paid an amount of Rs.1,000/- by opposite

party No.1 towards salary. As the death occurred, while he was

working as cleaner i.e., during the course and out of his employment

with opposite party No.1, the present application is filed by the

applicants. The applicants claim that both the opposite parties are

jointly and severally liable to pay compensation for death of the

deceased.

4. Opposite party No.1 filed his counter admitting the employment

of the deceased on the lorry owned by him. He also admitted the

salary paid to the deceased and stated that the deceased died during

the course of employment with him. He stated that the cause of death

was stomach pain, diarrhea and vomiting. It is his case that the death

MGP,J CMA_759_2013

of the deceased was natural death, as such he is not liable to pay any

compensation. Further, he stated that the lorry bearing No.APO 3242

was insured with opposite party No.2 with insurance policy valid from

11.09.1995 to 12.09.1996. Therefore, if there is any liability, opposite

party No.2 is liable to pay compensation.

5. Opposite party No.2 filed its counter denying the employee and

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

It also denied the manner of the incident, age of the deceased and also

wages paid to him. It is stated that the death of the deceased was

natural.

6. In support of their case, the applicants got examined P.Ws.1 and

2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. Opposite party No.1 got examined

one A.Venkateshwarlu as R.W.1, but did not adduce any documentary

evidence. Opposite party No.2 did not adduce any evidence.

7. On the basis of the above pleadings and evidence, the

Commissioner framed the following issues for consideration:

"1.Whether the deceased Bodukuri Ganesh is a workman as per the provisions of the Act, he died due to grievous injuries in an accident arising out of his employment?

2. What was the age of the deceased at the time of accident?

3. What were the wages paid to the deceased at the time of accident?

MGP,J CMA_759_2013

4. How much quantum of compensation payable?

5. Who is liable to pay the compensation?"

8. After considering the evidence and documents filed by both

sides, the Commissioner awarded an amount of Rs.1,10,005/-

towards compensation to the applicants. Aggrieved by the same, the

present appeal is filed at the instance of opposite party No.2 i.e., the

insurance company.

9. Heard, both sides.

10. The main contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant/opposite party No.2 is that the deceased died due to stomach

pain, diarrhea and vomiting, which is clearly a natural death. Hence,

opposite party No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation under the

provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

11. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and

2/applicants contended that the Commissioner has rightly considered

the evidence placed on record and granted just and reasonable

compensation to the applicants for the death of the deceased. The

same requires no interference by this Court.

MGP,J CMA_759_2013

12. Now, the point for determination is as follows:

"Whether the applicants are entitled for compensation as granted by the Commissioner?"

Point:-

13. This Court perused the entire evidence placed on record.

Applicant No.1, who is father of the deceased was examined as P.W.1

and deposed reiterating the contents of the claim petition. The

applicants got examined one P. Sammi Reddy as P.W.2, who was

present at the panchayath which was held after the death of the

deceased.

14. In favour of opposite party No.1, the driver of the lorry in which

the deceased was employed was examined. He admitted that the

deceased was working as cleaner in the said lorry. He deposed that he

was sent along with the deceased in the lorry to Keshavapatnam with

load of fertilizer bags. The deceased was well at the point of loading

and later, he complained uneasiness. After which, he did vomiting for

two to three times and he suffered from loose motions also.

Accordingly, he was taken to M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal, where he

died.

MGP,J CMA_759_2013

15. The main contention of the learned counsel for

appellant/opposite party No.2 is that the death of the deceased was

natural death, as such he cannot be treated as dead during the course

and out of his employment. Therefore, insurance company cannot be

held liable for any compensation.

16. It is pertinent to state that admittedly the deceased died while he

was on duty as cleaner. The evidence of R.W.1 shows that they were

travelling on the lorry owned by opposite party No.1 with load of

fertilizer bags. It is also deposed by him that the deceased suffered

with vomiting and loose motions and then, he was shifted to hospital,

where he died. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the

considered view that the deceased died during and course of his

employment under opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 admitted

in his counter that the deceased was working under him as a cleaner.

The Commissioner after considering all these aspects has rightly come

to the conclusion and held that both the opposite parties are

responsible and granted just and reasonable compensation. Therefore,

interference of this Court into such findings is unwarranted. The

appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

MGP,J CMA_759_2013

17. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed

confirming the order dated 27.03.2006 in W.C.No.30 of 1997 on the file

of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant

Commissioner of Labour, Warangal-I. There shall be no order as to

costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 18.11.2023 GVR