Dismissed

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vja, Krishna Dist v. Mohd Sami-Unnisa, Vja, Krishna Dist and 5 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Dec 2022CMA/630/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal filed by National Insurance Co Ltd. against a workmen's compensation award. The Court held that the deceased driver’s death due to a heart attack was caused by stress and strain from continuous driving, thus maintaining the lower court’s liability order.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, upholding the original compensation award.

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vja… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ::^AMARAVATI

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶5

CMA NO: 630 OF 2016

¶6

Appeal under Section 30 of W.C. Act against the order dated^23/09/2015 passed in W.C. No. 21 of 2011 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation & Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Gudiwada, Krishna District.

¶7

Between:

¶8

National Insurance Co Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, P.B.No.385, Ali Bagh Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada-2.

¶9

...APPELLANT / O.P. No.2

¶10

AND

¶11

Mohd Sami-Unnisa, W/o.Abdul Khader aged 45 Yrs, Housewife, R/o.D.No.755-26, C/o.Abdul Razal President Street, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada.

¶12

Mohamfaad Wasim, S/o.Abdul Khader aged 26 Yrs, Student, R/o.D.No.75-526, C/o.Abdul Razal President Street, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada.

¶13

Mohammad Wahed, S/o.Abdul Khader aged 26 Yrs, Student, R/o.D.No.75-526, C/o.Abdul Razal President Street, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada.

¶14

Mohammad Hussain, S/o.Abdul Khader aged 25 Yrs, Student, R/o.D.No.75-526, C/o.Abdul Razal President Street, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada.

¶15

Mohammad Mubeena, D/o.Abdul Khader aged 24 Yrs, Student, R/o.D.No.755-26, C/o.Abdul Razal President Street, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS 1 APPLICANTS

¶17

Allada Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o.Late Tata Rao, Aged 50 Yrs, R/o.33-23-4/A; Krishna Rao Street, Kast uribailict , Vijayawada -10. ...RESPONDENTS 1 O.P. No. 1

¶18

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order to take on record additional evidence in appeal

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶21

Between:

¶22

Mohd Sami-Unnisa, W/o.Abdul Khader aged 45 Yrs, Housewife, R/o.D.No.755-26, C/o.Abdul Razal President Street, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada.

¶23

Mohamfaad Wasim, S/o.Abdul Khader aged 26 Yrs, Student, R/o.D.No.75-526, C/o.Abdul Razal President Street, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada.

¶24

Mohammad Wahed, S/o.Abdul Khader aged 26 Yrs, Student, R/o.D.No.75-526, C/o.Abdul Razal President Street, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada.

¶25

Mohammad Hussain, S/o.Abdul Khader aged 25 Yrs, Student, R/o.D.No.75-526, C/o.Abdul Razal President Street, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada.

¶26

Mohammad Mubeena, D/o.Abdul Khader aged 24 Yrs, Student, R/o.D.No.755-26, C/o.Abdul Razal President Street, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada.

¶27

...PETITIONERS / RESPONDENTS

¶28

AND

¶29

National Insurance Co Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, P.B.No.385, All Bag Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada-2.

¶30

... RESPONDENT/APPELLANT

¶31

Allada Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o.Late Tata Rao, Aged 50 Yrs, R/o.33-23-4/A; Krishna Rao Street, Kast uribailict , Vijayawada -10. Respondent No.2 not necessary party.

¶32

...RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS

¶33

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Vacate the stay granted in CMAMP No. 386 of 2016 in CMA (SR) No.6446 of 2016 dated 01.03.2016 filed against WC No.21/ of 2011 dated 23-09-2015 on the file^of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Gudivada, Krishna District

¶34

Counsel for the Appellants : SRI. V VEERABHADRA CHARY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SUBHANI S M

¶35

The Court made the following:

¶36

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 630 of 2016

¶37

JUDGMENT:

¶38

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the award in W.C. No.21 of 2011. The case of the respondents herein is that the respondents herein are the dependents of the deceased driver; on the death of the driver they lose their breadwinner. Hence, they have filed application for claiming compensation under Workmen Compensation Act. The Commissioner for workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour Gudiwada awarded an amount of Rs.4,94,673/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Three only) towards compensation to the claimants who are respondents herein.

¶39

Aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal on the ground that the deceased was not died during the course of the employment and it is natural death not due to stress and strain as the deceased has stayed overnight at Ankaleswar and contended that his death cannot be treated as death occurred due to stress. Further, contended that the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Gudiwada, has erroneously allowed claim application in favour of the claimants and prayed to set aside the award and to impose costs on the respondents herein.

¶40

On perusal of the record, the deceased driver has started his duties on 20.07.2011 by loading the vehicle with sand from Vizianagaram and reached Ankaleswar G.I.D.C., on 24.07.2011 after unloading the sand, he started on the same day at about 4.30 hours with another load of tiles from Ramco Tiles, Morbi and in the evening he parked the vehicle at petrol bunk near Vadodara and took rest for some time in the night and thereafter on 26.07.2011 at about 8.00 `o' clock reached Ankaleswar and parked his vehicle in front of hotel, began preparing food by his cleaner, after taking food they both started and parked the vehicle on Surat-Shulia High way road opposite to Priya hotel, while getting down the vehicle the deceased suffered from heavy strain and stress because of his continuous restless duty he fell down and become unconscious with severe pain and began blood vomiting and he was shifted to hospital in 108 ambulance and he lost his last breath on 26.07.2011 as per the record.

¶41

From the post-mortem examination report, it appears that the death was due to sudden heart attack. Admittedly, the deceased had died due to heart attack. There is no sufficient evidence to interfere with the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation that the deceased was not died on account of heart attack. Nobody can deny the fact that, a person is driving a vehicle, be it is a truck or a lorry or a bicycle, certain amount of stress or strain on account of the work while driving the vehicle to observe the oncoming traffic, his path and other obstructions which he has to bear in mind while driving the vehicle.

¶42

¶43

More so, while driving a long journey days^{together,thedriver,whois} driving the vehicle, should have more care and caution. Though the deceased was died due to heart attack, the casual connection to the nature of the cause accelerated to the death. The deceased has started his duties on 20.07.2011, he died on 26.07.2011 due to his continuous and restless driving of the vehicle, the deceased was died, which death is due to stress and strain. In the present case, the driver was driving the vehicle for 5 to 6 days and he drove the vehicle for more than 300 kms. Hence, there will be a stress on the driver. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has accepted the case of the claimants and, in such circumstances, this Court cannot find that the deceased was not died due to stress which resulted the death of the deceased.

¶44

That the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Gudiwada has relied on Mst. Param Pal singh through father v. national Insurance Company and Others 1 before passing the award for the above said proposition.

¶45

The grounds raised by the appellant herein would not involve any substantial question of law and the disputed facts were already resolved by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. As there are no substantial grounds raised under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation.

¶46

1 2013 ACJ 526

¶47

¶48

In view of the reasons given by the Commissioner for workmen's

¶49

Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour Gudiwada, I found no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is

¶50

dismissed.

¶51

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stands closed. Shc- P. VENKATA RAMANA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶52

SECTION OFFICER

¶53

To,

¶54