Dismissed

United India Insurance Co,.Ltd v. Smt. K. Rama

Telangana HC2 Sept 2013CMA/3260/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an insurance company's appeal against a compensation award. The Commissioner held that the employee's suicide, resulting from panic and frustration immediately after a fatal work accident, was deemed to have arisen out of and in the course of employment under the insurance policy.

What did the court decide?

Civil miscellaneous appeal dismissed; miscellaneous applications closed; no order as to costs.

United India Insurance Co,.Ltd Vs Smt. K. Rama — Insurance | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶5

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3260 of 2003

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

¶8

... APPELLANT

¶9

AND

¶10

Smt. K. Rama and others.

¶11

...RESPONDENTS

¶12

Counsel for the Appellant: SMT. M. SEETHA DEVI

¶13

Counsel for the Respondents: MR. SRINIVAS RAO BODDULURI

¶14

The Court made the following:

¶15

JUDGMENT:

¶16

This appeal is by the insurance company against the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour – III, Hyderabad in W.C.No.30 of 2002 dated 08.08.2003.

¶17

2. By the aforesaid award, a compensation of Rs.2,13,570/- was awarded to the claimants by accepting the case of the claimants that the deceased, driver of the lorry, died during and in the course of employment on

¶18

account of the accident occurred on 15.12.1999.

¶19

3. From the facts it appears that on 15.12.1999 when the deceased was driving the lorry belonging to the first opposite party and insured with the second opposite party (appellant herein),

¶20

a collusion took place between the lorry driven by the deceased and a tractor trailer, which is said to be coming in the opposite direction. The said accident resulted in the death of almost 5 to 6 passengers in the tractor trailer apart from injuring several others and out of fear,

¶21

the deceased is said to have run away from the place of accident and just on the outskirts of the nearby village, committed suicide by hanging himself to a tree. While the accident occurred on 15.12.1999, the suicide by the deceased driver was in immediate proximity thereof, as was found during post mortem of his body on 16.12.1999.

¶22

The widow and the children of the deceased driver, therefore, filed the aforesaid compensation case by claiming that he was drawing monthly salary of Rs.2,500/- and was also getting batta of Rs.50/- per day. Hence, they sought compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-.

¶23

4. The said compensation case was contested only by the appellant – insurance company, primarily, on the ground that the deceased having died, after committing suicide, the case does not fall within the coverage of the policy of insurance. The aforesaid stand was also supported by examining R.W.1, their Assistant Administrative Officer.

¶24

5. The Commissioner recorded the evidence of the first claimant, widow of the deceased and marked through her Exs.A1 to A8, which comprise of police records including FIR, inquest report, post mortem report as well as the insurance policy, Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 driving license of the deceased. The Commissioner, on evidence, found that immediately after the accident on seeing several people dead and injuries to several others, the deceased panicked and ran away and committed suicide by hanging himself to a tree. The Commissioner, therefore, found that the said suicide by the deceased was an outcome and consequence of the fear and frustration arising out of

¶25

the major accident caused at his hands, as driver of the lorry and therefore, the suicide had a close nexus to the accident and has, therefore, been treated as a death arising out of and during the course of employment. Treating the monthly earnings of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- and taking his age of 27 years, a compensation of Rs.2,13,570/- was awarded.

¶26

6. In this appeal, against the said award, the learned counsel for the appellant, primarily, argued with regard to the suicide of the deceased, which does not qualify for compensation under the policy, as accidental death is alone covered under the policy.

¶27

7. I have seen the evidence on record, particularly, the evidence of R.W.1, Assistant Administrative Officer, who states as follows:

¶28

“… At the time of the accident the deceased K. Raju @ Rajaiah was driving the lorry of O.P.1 … The deceased was accused in the accident in Cr.No.79/99 Ex.A-1. The accident took place 9-30 hrs on 15-12-1999. It is true that the deceased committed suicide due to the frustration of the accident. It is true that the cause of suicide as frustration was mentioned in Ex.A-2…”

¶29

8. From the above admission of R.W.1, it is evident that the employment of the deceased and his working as driver of the lorry, belonging to the first opposite party, is not doubted nor there is any controversy or dispute with regard to the accident of the lorry on 15.12.1999. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was shown as accused in Cr.No.79 of 1999 relating to the accident. Hardly, within twenty four hours, thereafter, the deceased committed suicide out of panic, frustration and guilt carried by him in his mind. There is, therefore, substantial material, on record, including the admission of R.W.1 that the suicide by the deceased was not only in the immediate proximity of the accident but was also directly relatable to the panic and frustration arising out of the accident. The finding of the Commissioner, in that respect, therefore, is consistent with the evidence on record and I find no reason to take a different view. Since that is the only question urged in the appeal, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶30

The civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶32

September 2, 2013 DSK

United India Insurance Co,.Ltd v. Smt. K. Rama

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co,.Ltd v. Smt. K. Rama

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Palem Sanjeevaiah Vs Gajarampalli Nagaraju

Lalitha Pershad Gupta Vs Sunil Kumar

Palem Sanjeevaiah Vs Gajarampalli Nagaraju

Marureddy Nallapa Reddy Vs Chava Sudarshana Reddy

Shaik Ayub Vs P. Narsaiah

Gaddam Venkata Ramana, Vs Sri Venkateswara University, represented by its