Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Sri . Dasari Venkatesu & 4 Others

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY , E-8, RICCO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPUR - 302022, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN STATE, (INSURER OF EICHER VAN ) POLICY NO. 10003/31/11/ 444131 ( VALID FROM 31-01-2011 TO 30-012012).

¶13

...APPELLANT

¶14

AND

¶15

SRI DASARI VENKATESU 4 OTHERS, S/O. VENKATESU , R/O KALLUMADI VILLAGE , SINGANAMALA MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DIST.

¶16

SMT DASARI LAKSHMIDEVI, W/O. D.VENKATESU, R/O KALLUMADI VILLAGE , SINGANAMALA MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DIST.

¶17

SRI DASARI MUNISWAMY, S/O. D.VENKATESU, R/O KALLUMADI VILLAGE , SINGANAMALA MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DIST.

¶18

DASARI KAVITHA, STUDENT , D/O. D.VENKATESU, R/O KALLUMADI VILLAGE , SINGANAMALA MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DIST. (MINOR REP. BY ITS NATURAL MOTHER R-2)

¶19

SRI K RAGHAVA REDDY, S/O. K PULLA REDDY D.NO. 4/75-1 , YERRAGUNTAPALLI VILLAGE, TADIPATRI, MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. (OWNER OF EICHER VAN NO. AP02-W9089)

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

2

¶22

CMA NO.544 OF 2016 VS,J.

¶23

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶24

V ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

Y BHAGYALAKSHMI REDDY

¶27

M KARIBASAIAH

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

3

¶30

CMA NO.544 OF 2016 VS,J.

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶32

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 544/2016

¶33

J U D G M E N T:

¶34

1. This is an appeal preferred by the 2^nd Respondent i.e., Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, challenging the Order dated 30.09.2015 passed in E.C.No.9 of 2011 by the Commission for Employees Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour at Ananthapuramu.

¶35

The parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal i.e., appellant as Opposite Party No.2 (hereinafter referred to as O.P.No.2), Respondents No.1 to 4 as Applicants and Respondent No.5 as Opposite Party No.1 (hereinafter referred to as O.P.No.1).

¶36

2. The father, mother, brother and sister of Dasari Seena (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) filed a claim application under Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter called the Act) for compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest and costs, for the death of Dasari Seena.

¶37

3. Brief facts of the application before the Tribunal are that: the deceased – Dasari Seena was workman under the 1^st opposite party and getting salary of Rs.8,000/- per month and batta Rs.200/- per day. At the time of accident, the age of the deceased was about 19 years.

¶38

4

¶39

CMA NO.544 OF 2016 VS,J.

¶40

i. While so, on 09.04.2011 at about 02.00 A.M, under the instructions of Opposite Party No.1 the deceased workman - Dasari Seena was driving the Eicher van bearing Registration No.AP02-W-9089 from Madras to Tadipatri. When the Van reached near Chennareddipalli on Tadipatri - Kadapa Road, the deceased workman drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed, lost control over the vehicle went off its wrong side and dashed the opposite coming lorry bearing Registration No.AP-03-X-3541, as a result the deceased sustained severe head injuries and died on the spot. A criminal case was also registered as Cr.No. 50/2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 337, 304A of the Indian Penal Code in Muddanur Police Station against the deceased driver.

¶41

ii. The deceased died during the course of his employment, while he was driving the Eicher Van bearing registration No.AP02-W-9089 belongs to 1^st Opposite Party and the said Eicher Van was insured with Opposite Party No.2. Hence, Opposite Party No 1 being the owner of the crime Vehicle and Opposite Party No.2 being its insurer, jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the applicants, as the applicants are dependents upon the Deceased Dasari Seena.

¶42

4. The Opposite Party No.1 was set ex-parte before the Tribunal.

¶43

5

¶44

CMA NO.544 OF 2016 VS,J.

¶45

5. The Opposite Party No.2 filed counter denying all the averments mentioned in the claim petition i.e., age and wage of the deceased worker, the deceased was worked as a Driver of the Eicher Van bearing No. AP02-W-9089 belongs to the 1^st respondent, the deceased died during the course of employment under Opposite Party No.1, the deceased driver was having valid driving license to drove the crime vehicle, Employee and Employer relationship between deceased and Opposite Party No. 1, valid records of the crime vehicle, etc, and thereby prayed to dismiss the application, with costs.

¶46

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been

¶47

settled for trial by the Tribunal.

¶48

1. Whether the deceased was employee as per the provisions of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 and he met with the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting in to death?

¶49

1. What was the age of the deceased employee at the time of accident?

¶50

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

¶51

1. What is the amount of compensation payable?

¶52

1. Who are liable to pay compensation?

¶53

7. During the Course of inquiry before the Tribunal, on behalf of

¶54

applicants 1^st applicant got examined as A.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 – attested

¶55

6

¶56

CMA NO.544 OF 2016 VS,J.

¶57

copy of F.I.R; Ex.A.2 – attested copy of inquest report; Ex.A.3 – attested copy of post-mortem certificate; Ex.A.4 – office copy of Legal notice; Ex.A.5 – Served acknowledgment of O.P.No.1; and Ex.A.6 – Served Acknowledgment of O.P.No.2.

¶58

On behalf of contesting Opposite Party No.2, its Legal Officer by name J.Vijay Kumar got examined as R.W.1 and got marked copy of Insurance policy as Ex.B.1. One I.Prabhakar Rao, working as Senior Assistant in Office of the Road Transport Authority, Ananthapuramu got examined as R.W.2. Through R.W.2 got marked Ex.X.1 – Authorization letter issued by the Deputy Transport Officer, Ananthapuramu; and Ex.X.2 – “B” register extract of Eicher Van bearing Registration No.AP02-W-9089.

¶59

8. Upon hearing both counsel and upon perusing the material on record, the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,83,686/- as compensation and stamp duty of Rs.1,167/-, with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e., 19.04.2010 till the date of payment of compensation to the applicants, to be paid by the opposite parties No.1 and 2 jointly and severally by means of demand draft drawn in favour of “The Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Joint Commissioner of Labour, Kurnool” drawn on State Bank of India, Kurnool, within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of the order. If they failed to deposit the awarded amount within 30 (thirty) days of receipt of

¶60

7

¶61

CMA NO.544 OF 2016 VS,J.

¶62

order, they have to pay the penalty under Section 4(A) 3 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. Opposite Party No.2 – Insurance Company is not liable to pay interest. Interest on compensation amount is payable by the employer – owner of the Eicher Van bearing No.AP02-W-9089. The applicants are directed to make representation to the Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation and Joint Commissioner of Labour, Kurnool for release of compensation amount deposited by the opposite Parties No.1 and 2.

¶63

9. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the opposite party No.2 – Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal on the grounds that the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation failed to see that there is no liability on the part of the appellant under Workman Compensation Act and under the Insurance Policy, as the applicants failed to prove employer – employee relationship by examining the opposite party No.1, by adducing cogent evidence, when the employer failed to file any counter and give evidence and failed to prove that the deceased was workman under owner of the vehicle and died in the course of employment. The deceased was aged 19 years as per criminal record and he is ineligible even to get a driving license to drive the Eicher van, as no person under the age of 20 years shall drive a transport vehicle in any public place. The deceased was not the driver and he is support driver or spare drier, no extra premium paid by the owner to cover the risk of alleged support drier. Hence, appellant company is not liable to pay any compensation. The Tribunal

¶64

8

¶65

CMA NO.544 OF 2016 VS,J.

¶66

erred in fixing the wages of the deceased driver as Rs.5,183/- which is highly excessive. The deceased was not holding driving license to run Eicher Van lorry, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation only if conditions of the policy are complied i.e., driver’s clauses, that if only if the driver having valid driving license to drive the vehicle. In this case opposite party No.1 not produced any driving license of the deceased and not adduced any oral evidence to show that the deceased was employed by him.

¶67

10. Heard both counsel and perused the material in record.

¶68

11. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows:-

¶69

Whether the deceased comes under the definition of Workman under Section 2(n)(i)(c) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 and entitled for compensation as awarded by the Tribunal?

¶70

12. With regard to the contention of age, employment and death of the deceased the Tribunal basing on oral evidence of A.W.1 and Ex.A.1 attested copy of F.I.R, Ex.A.2 – attested copy of inquest report of the deceased, and Ex.A.3 – certified copy of postmortem certificate, came to the conclusion that the deceased – Dasari Seena was an employee under Opposite Party No.1 under

¶71

9

¶72

CMA NO.544 OF 2016 VS,J.

¶73

the provisions of Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 and he died during the course of his employment.

¶74

13. With regard to the contention of Opposite Party No.2 that the driver of the crime vehicle not having valid driving license at the time of accident and hence insurance company is not liable to pay the Compensations to the applicants, the Tribunal in its order discussed in detail by relying upon various judgments and held that the burden is on the insurance company to prove it. Though the Insurance Company got examined the official from R.T.A., Ananthapuramu as R.W.2, in his cross examination R.W.2 stated that the driver can obtain the driving license from anywhere in India. Further, A.W.2 admitted that if the deceased Dasari Seena obtained any driving license from other office other than their RTA office, they do not have such particulars. Thus, the Tribunal relying on a Judgment of the Supreme Court of India at New Delhi (SLP (C) No. 9027 of 2003 and others; decided on 05.01.2004 in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Swaran Singh and others and another Judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad reported in 2008 (4) ALT 521 in National Insurance Co., Limited, Ongole V. Parital Venkateswarlu and other , came to the conclusion that the Opposite Party No. 2 has not established that the deceased Dasari Seenu did not possess the driving license at the time accident. Hence, the Tribunal held that the driver of the Crime vehicle had valid driving license to drive the crime vehicle at the time of accident.

¶75

10

¶76

CMA NO.544 OF 2016 VS,J.

¶77

14. With regard to the wages payable to the deceased, the applicants in the claim application and by filing affidavit on oath as A.W.1 have mentioned that the deceased was getting salary Rs.8000/- per month and Rs.200/- batta per day. This was disputed by the Opposite Party No.2 for computation of compensation. Thus, the Tribunal relied on the Judgment reported in 1998-(4)Karn-LJ-406-1998 (81) FLR-116 in Mahaboob bi Vs Abdul Rasheed wherein it was held that where evidence was not adduced by either Party with regard to monthly wages of the deceased employee, the Commissioner will have to fix the wages payable under Minimum Wages Act, as such the Minimum wages fixed to the Cleaner as per G.O. Ms. No. 83, Labour Employment Training & Factories (Lab.II) Department, Dated 22.11.2006 published in the A.P Gazette Part No.1, Extra Ordinary No.723 dt:04.12.2006 as basic wage Rs.3435/- + C.L.A. Rs.1748.25/- total wages Rs.5183.25/- per month, in computation payable in 19 years factor i.e., 225.22. Thus, an amount of Rs.5,83,686/- [225.22 X 50/100 X 5183.25=5,83,685.78/- (Rounded to nearest Rs.5,83,686/-)] and stamp duty of Rs.1167/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to be paid by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 from the date of filling of the claim application i.e., 19.04.2010 to till the date of payment of compensation to the applicants. Since there was an insurance coverage vide Policy No.10003/31/11/444131 valid from 31.01.2011 tο 30.01.2012 with the Opposite Party No.2, which was in force at the time of

¶78

11

¶79

CMA NO.544 OF 2016 VS,J.

¶80

accidental death of the deceased, the Tribunal held that the appellant – Insurance company is also liable to pay compensation to the applicants.

¶81

15. In view of my above discussion, there are no merits to allow the appeal. The Order passed by the Tribunal is neither illegal nor arbitrary. In view of the same, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶82

16. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

¶83

Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶84

_______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶85

KS Dated 19.02.2026.

¶86

12

¶87

CMA NO.544 OF 2016 VS,J.