Telangana High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Hyd vs S. Obul Reddy, Hyd And Ano on 21 June, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.488 of 2013
JUDGMENT:
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.03.2013 passed in
W.C.No.105 of 2010, on the file of the Commissioner for
Employees' Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of
Labour-II, Hyderabad (hereinafter be referred as 'the
Commissioner'), the opposite party No.2/Insurance Company
filed the present Appeal seeking to set-aside the order passed
by the learned Commissioner.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be
referred as they were arrayed before the Commissioner.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, who is
the husband of the deceased-Smt.S.Ramanamma @
Ravanamma, filed a petition under the provisions of the
Employees' compensation Act, 1923 seeking compensation of
Rs.4,00,000/- from the opposite parties 1 & 2 on account of
the death of the deceased in an accident that occurred on
10.10.2009. It is stated by the applicant that the deceased
used to work as 'Labourer' under the employment of Opposite
MGP,J
party No.1 on her Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos.AP-27AC-
5351 and AP-27AC-5352 and on 10.10.2009, when the
deceased was on duty as Labourer on the said Tractor and
Trailer and was proceeding from Thetupeta Village towards
Murugamy Village side and when reached the outskirts of
Murugamy Village, the driver of the said Tractor drove the
same in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed. As a
result, the Tractor-Trailer turned turtle and the deceased
sustained severe injuries on both limbs and multiple injuries
all over the body. Immediately, she was shifted to Vijaya
Hospital, Ongole, where she underwent treatment as inpatient
and was discharged and later, as her condition became very
serious, she was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad
and while undergoing treatment, she died on 12.11.2009.
Based on a complaint, Police of Chilkalguda Police Station,
registered a case in Crime No.685 of 2009 under Section 174
Cr.P.C. The applicant stated that the deceased was being
paid wages @ Rs.4,500/- per month and was aged about 45
years as on the date of her death. He also stated that as the
said Tractor and Trailer were insured with opposite party No.2
vide policy bearing No.150901/31/09/01/00001449 for the
MGP,J
period from 28.08.2009 to 27.08.2010 covering the date of
accident, hence, opposite party No.1, being the owner and
opposite party No.2, being the Insurance Company, both are
jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
4. Opposite party No.1, who is the owner of the subject
Tractor and Trailer, though received notice, did not appear
before the Commissioner nor contested the case. Hence, she
was set exparte.
5. Opposite party No.2/Insurance company filed its
counter denying all the averments made in the claim
application including, employment, wage, batta paid, age,
occurrence of the accident and also employer-employee
relationship, specifically denied Driving License of driver of
the subject Tractor and Trailer at the time of accident and
also insurance policy covering the risk of the deceased and
further contended that the claim of compensation is excess
and exorbitant and hence, prayed to dismiss the claim
against it.
6. In support of his case, the applicant No.1 was examined
as AW1. He filed an affidavit in lieu of his chief examination
MGP,J
wherein he reiterated the contents made in the claim
application and got marked Exs.A1 to A10 on his behalf.
Ex.A1 = Ex.A2 is the FIR. Ex.A3 is the inquest report. Ex.A4
is the Death certificate. Exs.A5 & A6 are the copies of RC of
Tractor and Trailer. Ex.A7 is the Driving License. Ex.A8 is
the Insurance policy. Ex.A9 is the Discharge Summary.
Ex.A10 is the Hospital Bill. During his cross-examination by
2nd opposite party/Insurance company, he said that he had
not filed any documentary proof to show that the deceased
was getting salary of Rs.4,500/- per month. He denied the
suggestion that the Insurance company is not liable to pay
any compensation and that he is deposing false.
7. As opposite party No.1 remained exparte, none of the
witnesses were examined on her behalf.
8. On behalf of opposite party No.2, RW1, who is working
as Administrative Officer in Opposite party No.2/Insurance
Company was examined. He stated that Opposite party No.1
had not informed the Insurance company about the alleged
accident, which is the basic duty of the insured and even after
receipt of notice by opposite party No.1, she failed to clarify
MGP,J
the relationship of the applicant with them and hence, the
Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.
He also contended that as per police records, the deceased
was traveling as an unauthorized person and there was no
nexus between the death of the deceased and the employment
of the deceased. He also stated that the opposite party No.1
did not pay any premium to cover the risk of the labourer
under the policy and that no salary slip was filed by the
claimants to show that the deceased was engaged by opposite
party No.1 and in view of the above circumstances, opposite
party No.2 is not liable to indemnify opposite party No.1 and
requested to dismiss the claim against it.
9. RW1, in support of his evidence, got marked Ex.B1-
Insurance policy on behalf of opposite party No.2. During his
cross-examination by the applicant, he accepted that as per
FIR, inquest report and complaint, the deceased died while
she was traveling on the subject Tractor and Trailer bearing
Nos.AP-27AC-5351 and AP-27AC-5352 to attend the coolie
works at Murugami village. He also accepted that the
Insurance company collected premium for the trailer and the
insurance policy was valid as on the date of accident. He also
MGP,J
accepted that he did not file any document to show that the
deceased was traveling as an unauthorized passenger.
10. The learned Commissioner, after considering the entire
evidence and documents available on record, awarded
compensation of Rs.3,07,292/- together with interest @ 12%
per annum which is payable by both the opposite parties from
the date of accident till the date of realization.
11. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal is filed by
opposite party No.2/Insurance Company.
12. Heard both sides.
13. The contentions of the learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company are that the deceased traveled
on the subject insured tractor and trailer as an unauthorized
passenger and there do not exist any employee-employer
relationship between opposite party No.1 and the deceased
and also contended that the learned Commissioner erred in
relying Ex.A3-Inquest report for the purpose of age of the
deceased and was not justified in deciding the wages in the
absence of legally acceptable oral and documentary evidence
MGP,J
and hence, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the
order of the learned Commissioner. Learned counsel also
relied upon certain decisions which are reported in 2023 ACJ
1405, MANU/TN/6503/2018 and etc. wherein the appeals
filed by Insurance Company were allowed on the ground of
violation of policy conditions.
14. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1/applicant
contended that the Commissioner, after taking into
consideration the entire evidence and documents available on
record, awarded reasonable compensation for which
interference of this Court is unwarranted. Learned counsel,
in support of his contention, relied upon a decision passed by
this Court in CMA.No.65 of 2010 wherein the applicants were
awarded compensation along with interest @ 12% per annum.
15. Now the points for determination are as follows:
1. Whether the applicant is entitled for
compensation?
2. Whether the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 are
liable to pay compensation?
MGP,J
Points 1 & 2:
16. This Court has perused the evidence and documents
available on record. There is no dispute about the accident
that occurred on 10.10.2009. The first and foremost
contention of the learned counsel for appellant is that the
deceased traveled on the subject insured tractor and trailer as
an unauthorized passenger and there do not exist any
employee-employer relationship between opposite party No.1
and the deceased. In this connection, it is pertinent to refer
to the documents marked under Exs.A2 & A3 i.e., FIR and
inquest report and the evidence of RW1 wherein it is stated
that the deceased, in order to attend coolie works at Murgami
Village, travelled on Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos.AP-27AC-
5351 and AP-27AC-5352 and on the way, she fell down from
the said tractor and sustained injuries. Further, Opposite
party No.2, except relying on the evidence of Administrative
Manager of their Company, did not take any steps to summon
opposite party No.1/owner or the driver of the said Tractor
and Trailer to prove their contention that the deceased was
travelling as an unauthorized passenger. Further, the
Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 is a welfare legislation
MGP,J
and needs to be construed liberally in favour of the workman
who suffers employment injury or in favour of the
dependants. In the absence of any contrary evidence placed
on record to show that the deceased was travelling as an
unauthorized passenger, it cannot be said that the deceased
was not engaged as labourer on the said tractor and trailer.
Hence, the deceased was an employee within the meaning of
the Act and died during the course and out of her
employment as labourer on the Tractor and Trailer bearing
Nos.AP-27AC-5351 and AP-27AC-5352 under opposite party
No.1. Further, As per Ex.B1-Insurance policy, premium was
collected to cover the risk of the employee working on the said
Tractor and Trailer. Therefore, opposite party No.2 cannot
escape its liability for payment of compensation.
17. It is also contended that the learned Commissioner
erred in relying Ex.A3-Inquest report for the purpose of age of
the deceased and was not justified in deciding the wages in
the absence of legally acceptable oral and documentary
evidence. The applicant stated that the deceased was aged 45
years as on the date of accident. The age of the deceased as
per Ex.A3-Inquest report is 50 years. Except Ex.A3-Inquest
MGP,J
report, there are no other documents evidencing the age of the
deceased. In such circumstances, the learned Commissioner
considered the age mentioned in Ex.A3-Inquest report while
calculating compensation. Though the applicant stated that
the deceased was paid wages @ Rs.4,500/- per month, but he
could not come up with any statutory wage register
evidencing the same. Hence, the learned Commissioner, by
applying the minimum rates of wages fixed by the
Government vide G.O.Ms.No.90, LET & F (Lab-II) Department,
dated 28.09.2007 w.e.f.26.10.2007 and the VDA payable
thereon, limited the wages of the deceased to Rs.4,000/- per
month and by applying the relevant factor as per the age of
the deceased, awarded compensation to an amount of
Rs.3,07,292/-.
18. This Court is of the considered opinion that the learned
Commissioner has rightly discussed all the aspects and
awarded reasonable compensation and this Court do not find
any reason to interfere with the said finding which is in
proper perspective. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits and
is liable to be dismissed.
MGP,J
19. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed without costs.
20. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Date: 21.06.2024
ysk
