High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a civil appeal against the dismissal of a workmen's compensation claim, holding that the appellants failed to discharge the initial burden of proof regarding employment and wages.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1929 of 2003
BETWEEN
Peddireddi Koteswaramma and another.
... APPELLANTS
AND
M. Padmavathi and another.
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Appellants: MR. B. PARAMESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: MR. P. PHALGUNA RAO- R2 MR. S. SUDARSHAN – R1
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is by the claimants against the award of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour – I, Guntur in W.C.No.113 of 2002 dated 17.02.2003.
2. The aforesaid claim petition was filed by two claimants, who are the wife and the son of the deceased, alleging that the deceased was said to be working as a cleaner on the lorry bearing No. AP 7T 2009 and on 16.10.2000, another unidentified lorry is claimed to have dashed the
deceased resulting in multiple injuries to him and ultimately, he succumbed to the said injuries. It is alleged that the deceased was 60 years old and drawing a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month as salary and that the lorry belonged to opposite party No.1 and insured with opposite party No.2.
3. The Commissioner while considering the evidence of the first claimant found that she had no personal knowledge of any of the vital aspects and except the police record, no other evidence, oral or documentary, is produced to substantiate the employer and employee relationship as well as the alleged wages earned by the deceased.
The Commissioner, therefore, having not been satisfied on the first aspect dismissed the claim petition. This appeal is preferred against eh said order.
4. Mr. B. Parameswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, has strongly relied upon Ex.A4, charge sheet, filed by the police whereunder column 4 the deceased is described as aged 67 years and his occupation as cleaner of the lorry bearing No. AP 7T 2009.
Learned counsel submits that the police, after investigation, had filed the aforesaid charge sheet, which by itself establishes that the deceased was the cleaner of the lorry and as such, the Commissioner, having not examined the said document, has erred in dismissing the claim petition. Learned counsel fairly submits that no other, oral or documentary, evidence is produced by the claimants but the fact remained that the FIR was registered at the instance of the driver of the lorry, who was incidentally the son-in-law of the deceased.
He further submits that since the accident occurred in Karnataka State, claimant No.1 had no personal knowledge and that by itself was not sufficient to discard her evidence.
5. I have seen the original record including the evidence of P.W.1 and her cross-examination where she states that neither she gave police complaint nor she was examined by the police nor she had any personal knowledge of
the accident. She also admitted that she has no documentary evidence to show that the deceased was working as a cleaner nor has any material to show that for how long he was working as such nor about the wages earned by him. The fact that the driver of the lorry was the son-in-law of the deceased and claimant No.1,
being not in dispute, it is surprising that he was not examined in support of the claim. Moreover, the second claimant, who is the son of the deceased, is also not examined and except the statement of first claimant, who had no personal knowledge on any aspect, the initial burden remained undischarged by the claimants. It is, no doubt true, that there is no rebuttal evidence against Ex.A4 produced by the claimants but on the basis of a solitary mention in the charge sheet while describing the deceased with his occupation, it is difficult to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants that Ex.A4 by itself establishes the employer and employee relationship, particularly, when crucial witnesses such as the driver of the lorry,
who is the son-in-law of the deceased and the son of the deceased, who is claimant No.2, were not examined. On the basis of solitary documentary evidence viz. Ex.A4, I am not prepared to accept the contentions if the learned counsel for the appellants. Hence, the order passed by the learned Commissioner does not warrant any interference.
The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly dismissed.
The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J
September 16, 2013 DSK
Peddireddi Koteswaramma and another
M. Padmavathi and another
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
