Allowed

Bondili Padmabhai v. Sri P.v.Venkateswarlu

Telangana HC14 Oct 2014CMA/622/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the dismissal of a claimant's workmen's compensation petition. The original order relied on evidence contested by the insurance company regarding the deceased driver's death. The court found the lower authority failed to appreciate documentary evidence proving the accident occurred during employment.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 13.05.2005 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the concerned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation to fix liability and quantify compensation.

Bondili Padmabhai Vs Sri P.v.Venkateswarlu — Money Laundering | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 622 of 2005

¶2

JUDGMENT:

¶3

The appellants/claimants have filed W.C.No.20 of 2004 on the file of Commissioner for Workmens Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, at Ongole, in respect of death of Bondili Pullaiah stating that the first appellant is the wife and appellants 2 and 3 are children of the deceased Pullaiah and appellant No.4 is the mother of the deceased and they are dependents of deceased Pullaiah. The deceased was working as driver on lorry No.AP 16X 299 owned by the first respondent on a monthly wage of Rs.4,000/-. On 09.10.2003, while the deceased was on duty and proceeding from Tamil Nadu to Nagpur with a load, the deceased stopped the lorry to take meals and while trying to alight from the lorry, he fell down and received head injuries. He was taken to General Hospital at Chandrapur and was admitted as in-patient, and he died on 11.10.2003. A case was registered in Crime No.59 of 2003 of Ballarsha Police Station, and sought for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 2. The first respondent-owner of the lorry, was set exparte. The second respondent-insurance company filed its counter before the Court below stating that the deceased was not having valid licence and the appellants are not legal heirs of the deceased. It is also stated that there is violation of the

¶4

terms of policy and the appellants have not given any undertaking that they have not filed any case before any other Court for the same relief, and hence sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶5

3. Smt. B. Padma Bai, the wife of the deceased was examined as AW1. She deposed that her husband was aged about 49 years and was working as driver under the first respondent since six months. She stated that while the deceased was going to Nagpur, he fell down from the lorry and died. She also stated that the deceased was getting salary of Rs.4,000/- per month and prayed for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.

¶6

4. The Commissioner for Workmens Compensation dismissed the application vide order dated 13.05.2005. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed.

¶7

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation has not properly considered the evidence adduced by the appellants and on surmises and conjectures dismissed the application. He submits that as per Ex.A1-post mortem report it is accidental death wherein it shows that the truck owned by the first respondent met with an accident at Chandrapur; Ex.A3-Spot Panchanama shows that the deceased Pullaiah who was the driver of truck bearing No. AP 16X 299, while alighting from the truck lost his control and fell down from the truck and he was taken to General Hospital, Chandrapur for treatment, where he died while undergoing treatment; Ex.A4 also shows

¶8

about the death of the deceased Pullaiah. Hence, learned counsel contends that the Commissioner, without properly appreciating the said evidence, dismissed the application filed by the appellants.

¶9

6. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Workmens Compensation shows that the claim was dismissed mainly on the evidence of RW1, who is R1. But Ex.A1-Accidental Death Book shows that the deceased Pullaiah died on 11.10.2003, at Vasu Transport, Ballarpur under Chandrapur Police Station limits. Ex.A3-Spot Panchanama shows that the deceased Pullaiah who is the driver of the vehicle died while alighting from the cabin of truck bearing No.AP16X 299 and he was taken to General Hospital, Chandrapur for treatment which is under the jurisdiction of Chandrapur Police Station. Ex.A4 also shows that when the deceased died, an inquest panchanama was conducted at Police Station, Chandrapur, and the evidence of AWs.1 and 2 would show that the deceased was working as driver on the truck bearing No. AP 16X 299 owned by the first respondent. The Commissioner for Workmens Compensation observed that except the testimony of witnesses AWs.1 and 2, there is no other recorded evidence. But Exs.A1 to A4, coupled with the evidence of AW1 and RW1, show that the deceased Pullaiah was working as driver on the lorry bearing No. AP 16X 299 which is owned by the 1^st respondent and the cause of death is that he has fallen down from the truck. Merely because RW1 stated that the

¶10

deceased died while tightening the taurpaline, other evidence cannot be ignored. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation has not properly interpreted the evidence adduced by the claimants. Workmen’s Compensation Act is a beneficial legislation and that any interpretation should be in favour of beneficiaries of legislation.

¶11

7. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation dismissed the application by the impugned order on the ground that AW2 stated that the deceased fell down from the top of the lorry while tightening the tarpaulene. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation should have seen that RW1 was not present at the time of accident, but Exs.A1 to A4 by itself shows that the deceased was driver of the lorry AP 16X 299 and he died during the course of employment.

¶12

8. In view of the same, the impugned order dated 13.05.2005 is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the concerned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ongole, for fixing liability and quantifying the quantum of compensation. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.

¶13

________________________________ JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶14

14^th October, 2014

¶15

KSM

Bondili Padmabhai v. Sri P.v.Venkateswarlu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bondili Padmabhai v. Sri P.v.Venkateswarlu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Diligent Inestment Ltd. Vs Ranklin Soulutions Ltd.

B. Maheswari, Vs Dr. S. Babulal

Saha Sree Projects, Vs M/s Sri Vijetiha Horticulture (India) Ltd.

Rakasi Janakiram Reddy Vs P.Ramaswamy

M/s Canara Bank, a Nationalised Bank, Vs C.Guravaiah Naidu

Syed Shah Faisal Hasan Vs Smt. Mallika Begum