Telangana High Court
The United India Insurance Company ... vs R.Bhagya Laxmi , Rajitha on 18 September, 2025
*THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
+ CMA No.992 OF 2018
% 18--09--2025
# The United India Insurance Company Limited
... Appellant
vs.
$ Smt.R.Bhagya Laxmi @ Rajitha and Others
... Respondents
!Counsel for the Appellant : Sri M.Satish Reddy
^Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Sri P.Ramakrishna Reddy
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred:
1. 2019 ACJ 29
2. 2017 ACJ 1
3. 2005 LawSuit(Kar) 670
2/15 BRMR,J
CMA.No.992_2018
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
CMA.No.992 OF 2018
Between:
The United India Insurance Company Limited
... Appellant
And
Smt.R.Bhagya Laxmi @ Rajitha and Others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 18.09.2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
1. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : No
_____________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO,J
3/15 BRMR,J
CMA.No.992_2018
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
CMA.NO.992 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-opposite party No.2
aggrieved by the orders passed in EC.No.96 of 2016, dated
12.06.2018 by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and
Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Hyderabad.
2. Appellant is the opposite party No.2-Insurance Company,
respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein are the applicants and respondent No.6
is the opposite party No.1-owner of Tavera Car.
3.1. Respondent Nos.1 to 5-applicants claimed compensation of
Rs.12,00,000/- for the death of R.Suresh who died in a motor vehicle
accident which occurred on 02.04.2016 during the course of
employment under the employment of respondent No.6-opposite No.1.
Respondent No.1-applicant No.1 is the wife, respondent No.2-applicant
No.2 is the daughter, respondent No.3-applicant No.3 is the son of
Late Suresh @ Suresh Goud. Respondent Nos.4 and 5-applicant Nos.4
and 5 are the parents of the deceased. Appellant-opposite party No.2
is the Insurer of the vehicle i.e., Tavera Car bearing No.AP 29V 9408.
On 02.04.2016 at about 10.00 P.M. on Pedda Vagu Bridge, Hyderabad-
Warangal National High Way-163 Road in the Village limits of Alair,
Nalgonda District. The deceased R.Suresh being the driver of the car
4/15 BRMR,J
CMA.No.992_2018
along with others were proceeding from Warangal towards Hyderabad,
when they reached one Pedda Vagu bridge on Hyderabad - Warangal
National High Way 163 road, at that time the vehicles which were
coming in the opposite direction due to focus of lights, the driver-
R.Suresh tried to move away from the vehicles and lost control of his
car, fell down on the left side of the bridge and car turned turtle and
due to the said impact, the driver-R.Suresh sustained fatal injuries and
died on the spot and other inmates of the car sustained grievous
injuries.
3.2. The accident occurred out of and during the course of an
employment of the deceased as driver under the employment of
respondent No.6-opposite party No.1 and the deceased was
discharging his duties as a driver on the date of accident. Police, Alair
has registered the case in Crime No.39 of 2016 under Sections 304(A)
and 337 of IPC. Respondent No.6-opposite party No.1 is the owner of
the car and the deceased was employed under him to work as a driver,
he used to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month towards salary and
Rs.400/- per day as batha. The deceased was aged about 32 years at
the time of accident and he was hale and healthy, young and
energetic, he was not having any ailments. Respondent No.6 and the
appellants-opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay the
compensation jointly and severally with interest @ 24% per annum
5/15 BRMR,J
CMA.No.992_2018
from the date of accident till the date of realization and prayed to allow
the application.
4. Respondent No.6-opposite party No.1 remained ex parte before
the Commissioner.
5. Appellant-opposite party No.2 filed counter and contended that
the policy mentioned in the application i.e., Policy
No.0502023115P111831135 is denied to have been issued to
respondent No.6-opposite party No.1 and that the deceased R.Suresh
was not the employee of respondent No.6-opposite party No.1. The
incident has taken place when the deceased was going on a trip with
his relatives which is evident from the Criminal Record, which does not
come under the coverage of EC Act and that the opposite party No.2
(appellant herein) is not aware of the criminal case proceedings lodged
in the above matter in Crime No.39 of 2016 of PS Alair, Nalgonda
District. The amount of compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- along with
interest @ 24% per annum as claimed by the applicants (respondent
Nos.1 to 5 herein) are not in accordance with schedule of EC Act and
that opposite party No.2 (appellant herein) is not liable to pay any
compensation to the applicants and prayed to dismiss the same.
6. The Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Deputy
Commissioner-Labour I, Hyderabad, has framed the following issues:
6/15 BRMR,J
CMA.No.992_2018
1. Whether the deceased was a workman within the
meaning of the Act and sustained injuries in the
accident on 02.04.2016 during the course and out of
his employment with the 1st opposite party as a driver
on the Tavera car bearing No.AP 29V 9408?
2. Who are liable to pay compensation to the applicants?
and;
3. What is the amount of compensation entitled by the
applicants?
7. Respondent No.1-applicant No.1 is examined as AW.1 and also
examined AW.2-Sri M.Sathyanarayana, got marked Exs.A1 to A9.
Appellant-opposite party No.2 failed to lead evidence but got marked
Ex.B1-Insurance Policy.
8. The learned Commissioner after analysing the evidence adduced
by the parties has awarded the compensation of Rs.7,47,974/- along
with interest @ 12% per annum (on Rs.7,44,486/-) from 03.05.2016
till the date of realization jointly and severally liable to pay the same
by opposite parties No.1 and 2 (respondent No.6 and appellant
herein).
9.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned
Commissioner failed to observe that the deceased was not under the
employment of the respondent No.6-opposite party No.1 and grossly
erred in fastening the liability jointly and severally and the substantial
question of law that arises for consideration are:
7/15 BRMR,J
CMA.No.992_2018
(a) whether the learned Commissioner is right in fastening the
liability on the appellant-opposite party No.2 and respondent
No.6-opposite party No.1, When the applicants (respondent
Nos.1 to 5) have not proved the employment of the deceased;
(b) Whether the learned Commissioner was right in passing the
award when the deceased was returning to Hyderabad along
with his family members and relatives in Tavera vehicle
bearing No.AP 29V 9408 after attending the funeral of the
relative; and
(c) Whether the learned Commissioner was right in passing the
award when the deceased was driving/using the vehicle for his
personal use.
9.2. The learned Commissioner failed to see that the alleged accident
did not occur during the course of employment of the deceased, failed
to appreciate the evidence on record properly and there is no
employer-employee relationship between the deceased and respondent
No.6-opposite party No.1 at the time of the accident and the learned
Commissioner ought not to have awarded interest @ 12% and prayed
to set aside the impugned order.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5-applicants
contend that the appellant did not enter into the witness box to
substantiate his contention and that the employer-employee
relationship is a question of fact, there is no substantial question of
8/15 BRMR,J
CMA.No.992_2018
law, no interference is called for and placed reliance on the decisions in
the cases of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs.
Sujatha 1, (2) Golla Rajanna and Others Vs. Divisional Manager, United
India Insurance Company Ltd., and another 2, (3) Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Yallappa Bhimappa Alagudi 3.
11. Heard learned counsel on record and perused the material.
12. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the grounds pleaded
by the appellant falls within the ambit of substantial question of law to
interfere with the impugned order, if so, to what extent?
13.1. The Appeal is filed by the appellant-opposite party No.2 under
Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the
specific orders set out in Clause a to e of Section 30 (1) of the Act.
13.2. The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the Appeal
is confined only to examine the substantial question of law arising in
the case.
14. Substantial question of law means that the point must be one
that can be reasonably discussed and would have a significant bearing
on the decision if answered in either way and the question must have a
significant impact on the case final outcome. If the answer to the
2019 ACJ 29
2017 ACJ 1
2005 LawSuit(Kar) 670
9/15 BRMR,J
CMA.No.992_2018
question, whether yes or no would substantially change the decision
then it is considered as a substantial question of law.
15. Respondent Nos.1 to 5-applicants counsel contended in the
written arguments that the employer-employee relationship is only a
question of fact which was decided by the Commissioner after
considering the oral and documentary evidence.
16. To establish the employer-employee relationship, evidence is
used to show the existence of crucial factors like the power to hire, the
power to pay wages, the power to dismiss and the power to control the
individual's work. Court will only interfere with findings on this issue if
there is a complete lack of evidence or if the finding is obviously
erroneous or perverse.
17. In North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation1, Supreme
Court observed at Para Nos.9 and 10 which reads as under:
"9. At the outset, we may take note of the fact, being a
settled principle, that the question as to whether the
employee met with an accident, whether the accident
occurred during the course of employment, whether it arose
out of an employment, how and in what manner the
accident occurred, who was negligent in causing the
accident, whether there existed any relationship of employee
and employer, what was the age and monthly salary of the
employee, how many are the dependants of the deceased
employee, the extent of disability caused to the employee
due to injuries suffered in an accident, whether there was
10/15 BRMR,J
CMA.No.992_2018
any insurance coverage obtained by the employer to cover
the incident, etc., are some of the material issues which
arise for the just decision of the Commissioner in a claim
petition when an employee suffers any bodily injury or dies
during the course of his employment and he/his LRs sue/s
his employer to claim compensation under the Act.
10. The aforementioned questions are essentially the
questions of fact and, therefore, they are required to be
proved with the aid of evidence. Once they are proved either
way, the findings recorded thereon are regarded as the
findings of fact.
18. In Golla Rajanna's case2, Supreme Court observed at Para No.11
which reads as under:
"11. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's
Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts.
Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the
appeal only to substantial questions of law being a welfare
legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this
crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has - ventured to
re-appreciate the evidence and - recorded its own findings
on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis.
The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the
competence of the High Court under section 30 of the Act".
19.1. B.Vijay Kumar has lodged a complaint before S.I. of Police,
Alair on 02.04.2016 contending that he along with nine others went to
Valimidi Village, Palakurthi Mandal, Warangal District, from Hyderabad
in one Tavera Car bearing No.AP 29V 9408 to attend the funeral of one
11/15 BRMR,J
CMA.No.992_2018
of the relatives and in return journey to Hyderabad in the same car,
when they reached Pedda Vagu Bridge, Alair, on NH-163 Road, one
vehicle was coming in the opposite direction with heavy focus lights at
about 10.00 hours in the night, the driver of the Tavera Car
(deceased) namely Rampally Suresh Goud S/o Somaiah, aged 28
years, who is his brother-in-law tried to move away from the vehicle
and lost control of his car and the car fell down on the left side of the
bridge and the driver died on the spot.
19.2. Basing on the said complaint, PS Alair has registered Ex.A1 -
FIR No.39 of 2016 dated 02.04.2016 for the offences under Sections
304(A) and 337 of IPC against Suresh Goud Rampally, Occupation-
Driver-Car. Ex.A2 is the charge sheet filed by the police in Crime
No.39 of 2016 dated 29.04.2016, wherein, the deceased-Rampally
Suresh Goud, occupation is shown as driver of Tavera Car bearing
No.AP 29V 9408. Ex.A3 is the Inquest Report and Ex.A5 is the
Accident Report. Ex.A8 is the Certificate of Registration of Maxi Cab
No.AP 29V 9408 and the registered owner is the respondent No.6-
opposite party No.1. The Maker's classification is shown as Chevrolet
Tavera NEO3, seating capacity is 10.
20. Section 2(n) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, says about
workmen means any person who is : (c) a person recruited as driver,
helper, mechanic, cleaner or in any other capacity in connection with a
motor vehicle.
12/15 BRMR,J
CMA.No.992_2018
21. The evidence of AW.1 is the replica of her application. In her
cross-examination, she stated that her Sur name and the Sur name of
respondent No.6-opposite party No.1 is R. and they belong to the
same community and she accompanied her husband at the time of
accident and all the members in the vehicle bearing No.AP 29V 9408
are relatives and they went to attend the funeral of maternal aunt of
the deceased, she has not filed any document to show the employment
of the deceased with opposite party No.1 (respondent No.6 herein) on
his vehicle so also she has not filed any document to show the salary
of the deceased and opposite party No.1 (respondent No.6 herein)
runs two vehicles as Travels. AW.1 denied the suggestion that the
deceased and other passengers were going on a personal work and the
Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and that the
deceased was not driving the vehicle in the capacity of the driver as
such, Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation
amount. AW.1 also denied the suggestion that opposite party No.1
disclosed to the Insurance company that the deceased took the vehicle
for his personal work as such opposite party No.2 (appellant herein) is
not liable to pay any compensation and the deceased do not come
under the term employee-driver.
22.1. The evidence of AW.2-M.Satyanarayana who is an eye-witness
to the incident travelled along with the other passengers in the Tavera
Car bearing No.AP 29V 9408 stated that the respondent No.1-applicant
13/15 BRMR,J
CMA.No.992_2018
No.1 is the wife of the deceased. On 02.04.2016 at about 9.00 A.M.
he received a phone call that his relative by name Cheruku
Jaganadham of Valimidi Village, Palakurthi Mandal, Warangal District
died. Himself, his relatives including applicant No.1 were willing to
attend the funeral then he contacted opposite party No.1 (respondent
No.6 herein) to send his car on hire, in turn opposite party No.1
informed that Tavera car is available for nine passengers and after
negotiations, opposite party No.1 agreed to receive a sum of
Rs.3,500/- towards hire charges for to and fro and he paid the said
amount to the deceased as directed by opposite party No.1. Opposite
party No.1 has sent the Tavera car bearing No.AP 29V 9408 and
initially the deceased was the driver of the said vehicle, and he
deposed the manner in which the accident has occurred. The
deceased was working as a driver under the employment of opposite
party No.1, by the time he received the death message of
C.Jaganadham, he was already on duty, the deceased was the driver
under the employment of opposite party No.1 and he died during the
course of his employment.
22.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that he is the relative of the
deceased who was driving the Tavera car bearing No.AP 29V 9408, he
is giving the evidence at the request of the Advocate and the persons
travelling in the Tavera car are all relatives, the applicant Sur name is
Rampally and opposite party No.1 Sur name is also Rampally and he
14/15 BRMR,J
CMA.No.992_2018
has no document to show that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/-
per month plus Rs.400/- batha per day.
23. The evidence of AW.1 and AW.2 coupled with Exs.A1, A2, A3
and A4 goes to show that the deceased was under the employment of
opposite party No.1 as a driver of Tavera car bearing No.AP 29V 9408.
The initial burden on AW.1 is discharged by way of adducing oral
evidence of AW.2 which is supported with Exs.A1, A2, A3 and A4.
Appellant - opposite party No.2 has taken a defense in the counter that
the deceased was not the employee of the opposite party No.1 but
failed to examine any independent witness to discharge their burden
but got marked Ex.B1-Policy.
24. This Court is of the view that the learned Commissioner has
rightly appreciated the facts of the case with regard to the
employment of the deceased with opposite party No.1 as a driver of
Tavera Car and assigned reasons in doing so in Para No.8 to 12 of its
order.
25. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 counsel - applicants placed reliance on
Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Limited3 , Wherein
the High Court of Karnataka has held that the petitioner is the son of
insured is not a ground to infer that there cannot be a relationship of
master and servant. The facts are distinct and the same is not
applicable.
15/15 BRMR,J
CMA.No.992_2018
26. Ex.B1 is the Policy insured with the opposite party No.2
(appellant herein) in respect of Tavera car bearing No.AP 29V 9408
and the same is valid from 07.01.2016 to 06.01.2017 covering the
date of accident i.e., 02.04.2016 which also covers the risk of the
driver. As the deceased was under the employment of opposite party
No.1 and is covered by the Insurance Policy. The deceased possessed
a valid driving license as on the date of accident (02.04.2016) under
Ex.A6. As per Ex.A5, the vehicle was in a fit condition at the time of
accident.
27. In so far as earnings of the deceased is concerned, the learned
Commissioner has taken the minimum rate of wages fixed by the
Government of Telangana in Employment of Public Motor Transport in
G.O.Ms.No.83, L.E.T & F (Lab-II) Department dated 22.11.2006 w.e.f.
04.12.2006 and arrived at the total wage of Rs.7,304.25 paise per
month which is taken as wages for the purpose of calculating the
amount of compensation. As per Ex.A6-driving license of the
deceased, his age is shown as 32 years at the time of accident (Date
of Birth is 10.07.1983). The learned Commissioner has awarded total
compensation of Rs.7,47,974/- with interest @ 12% per annum on the
amount of compensation i.e., Rs.7,44,486/- from 03.05.2016 till the
date of realization jointly and severally payable by opposite party No.1
and opposite party No.2 (respondent No.6 and appellant herein) within
30 days from the date receipt of this order.
16/15 BRMR,J
CMA.No.992_2018
28. The reasoning of the Commissioner with regard to the
assessment of the income is in accordance with law which is discussed
in Para Nos.13, 14 and 15 of its order.
29. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 - applicant's counsel filed Memo on
04.03.2024 stating that during pendency of the Appeal, respondent
No.5 - applicant No.5 died on 25.07.2018 (Death Certificate filed)
leaving behind respondent Nos.1 to 4 - applicant Nos.1 to 4 as legal
heirs and successors to his estate, Memo is taken on record.
30. As rightly contended by the respondent Nos.1 to 5-applicants
counsel that the employer-employee relationship is a question of fact
which is already decided by the Commissioner by giving cogent
reasons and there is no substantial question of law and this Court has
limited jurisdiction, cannot venture to re-appreciate the evidence and
record a different finding.
31. The appellate jurisdiction in the Appeal is confined only to
examine the substantial question of law arising in the case. In the
present case, there is no substantial question of law and the
Commissioner has properly appreciated the facts of the case and
rightly awarded the compensation to the respondent Nos.1 to 5-
applicants. The decisions cited by the respondent Nos.1 to 5-
applicants counsel in North East Karnataka's case1 and Golla Rajanna's
case2 are applicable to the case on hand.
17/15 BRMR,J
CMA.No.992_2018
32. This Court is of the view that the Commissioner was right in
deciding the matter and rightly awarded the compensation to the
respondent Nos.1 to 5-applicants and I am not inclined to interfere
with the same. Furthermore, appellant has not made out any
substantial question of law to re-appreciate the evidence on record.
Hence, Appeal deserves no consideration and the same is liable to be
dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed.
33. CMA No.992 of 2018 is dismissed without costs.
Interim orders, if any, shall stands vacated. Miscellaneous
application/s, if any, stands closed.
_________________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J
18th September, 2025.
PLV
