Dismissed

The Divisional Manager, Nicl, Hyd. v. Redapaka Mamatha [Sakkubai] and 4 Others

Telangana HC1 Sept 2023CMA/643/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Workmen's Compensation appeal, the Appellant (Insurance Company) challenged the Commissioner's order awarding Rs. 4,00,098/- for the death of a lorry driver. The High Court held that the death arose from stress due to continuous driving in heavy traffic, occurring in the course of employment, and dismissed the appeal, affirming the awarded compensation.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The Divisional Manager, Nicl, Hyd. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s3 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶6

c. M.ANO:643 OF 2O12

¶7

Appeal Under Section 30 of Workmen Compensatron Act against the Order dated 19-05-2012 made in WC No. 68 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-lV, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

The Divisional Manager, National lnsurance Company Limited, Rep.by its Manager, DO-ll, 2nd floor, Regency House, Near Rajiv Gandhi Statue, Soma.iiguda, Hyderabad -82.

¶10

...APPELLANT/2ND OPPOSITE PARTY

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . Redapaka Mamatha [Sakkubai], w/o Maheshwar, Occ house hold

¶13

Redapaka Chandu @ Vijaychand, S/o Maheshwar 3- Redapaka lshwarya, D/o Maheshwar, [RR 2 and 3 are being minors, rep.by R1l

¶14

Redapaka Maramma, Wo Chandramma, Occ nil [Res.No- 1 to 4 are Rl/o H-No. 2-2211A, Musarambagh, Hyderabad - 35.

¶15

S.Venkat Reddy, S/o S. Sathi Reddy, Occ Business, Ryo H.No. 5-1 19/7, Plot no.69, Old Boinpally Mallikarjuna Nagar, Secunderabad. (RR 2 & 3 declared as majors by discharging their mother i.e. R1 as natural guardian vide Court order dated 29.04.2022 in l.A.No.2 ot 2023) ...RESPONDENT/1^ST OPPOSITE PARTY

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI P. HARINATH GUPTA

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents 1 &^zt: SRI CHANDRAIAH SOMAVARAPU

¶18

Counsel forthe Respondents 2 & 3: SRI C.M. PRAKASH

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: NONE APPEARED

¶20

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SMT.^{JUSTICEM.G.PRIYADARSINI}

¶22

Civil Miscellaneou sApoeal^{No. 643 OF 2Ol2}

¶23

JUDGMENT:

¶24

Aggrieved by the order dated 19.05.2012^{passedby the} Commissioner for Employees' Compensation^{and Assistant} Commissioner of Labour^- IV,^{Hyderabadin W.C. Case No. 68 of} 2009, the opposite party No. 2/Insurance^{Companyhas filed} the present appeal.

¶25

For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the^parties will be referred as per the ir array belore the learned Commissioner.

¶26

The brief facts of the case, are that the applicants,^who are the wife, children and mother of the deceased-Redapaka Maheswar (hereinafter n,ill be referred as 'deceased'), Iiled application against opposite party Nos. I arrd 2, who are owner and insurer of the lorry bearing No. AP 28 X 3510 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,O0O/- tor the death of deceased. It is stated in the application that while the deceased was performing his duties as driver on the lorry bearing No. AP 28 X 35lO of the opposite party No.1 proceeding from Boinpally, Secunderabad to Visakhapatnam and on 18.04.2009 at about O2:00 a.m. when the lorry reached near outskirts of Visakhapatnam city, the deceased felt uneasy due to stress and immediately he took

¶27

MGP,.I CMA No. 643 ol 2()t 2

¶28

¶29

tablets for stomach ache and slept in the cabin of the lorry. At about l1:00 a.m, the driver found the deceased died when he tried to wake up the deceased. It was contended that the deceased died as he was continuously driving the bus and thereby he died due to stress, which amounts to an accident that arise oul of and in the course of employment. Based on the complaint, the Police, Visakhapatnam IV Town Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 164 of 2009 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the applicants, [he deceased was aged about 30 years, earning wages o[ Rs.a,O0O/- per month and batta of Rs. 10O/- per day as driver under the employment of opposite party No. I and used to contribute his entire earnings for the welfare of the family. Since the opposite party No.l has insured his lorry with opposite party No. 2 and as the death of the deceased occurred during the course of his emplo5rment under opposite party No. 1, both the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation jointly and severally to the applicants. Hence, the claim.

¶30

Before the Commissioner, the opposite part5r No. 1 remained ex parte and whereas, the opposite party No. 2 Iiled counter denying the averments of the application including the employee-employer relationship between the deceased and opposite part_v No. 1; death of the deceased as narrated; age and

¶31

MGP.J CMA No.643 of20l2

¶32

wages of the deceased; insurance coverage to the lorry and the deceased was holding valid and subsisting driving license as on the date of the accident. It was further contended that amount of compensation claimed by the applicants is excessive, exorbitant and finally prayed to dismiss the application.

¶33

On behalf of applicants, AWs. I and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A. I to A.9. On behalf of opposite party No. 2, RW. I was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

¶34

The Commissioner after considering the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, by determining the wages of deceased as Rs.4,OOO/ - per monrh, by applying the factor '199.40' for the age of deceased being 34 years, along with stamp and advocate fee ol Rs. 1,29g/_, has awarded compensation of Rs.4,O0,098/ _.

¶35

7 . Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Commissioner, the opposite party No.2/lnsurance Company has filed the present appeal to set aside the impugned order.

¶36

Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶37

9 The main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Company is that the death of the

¶38

¶39

MGP,J CMA No.643 of20l2

¶40

deceased is a natural death and did not occur during the course and out of his employment. The Commissioner has not considered the said aspect and awarded compensaLion. Hence, prayed to allow the appeai by setting aside the Order passed by the Commissioner.

¶41

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the applicants argued that after considering the evidence on record, the Commissioner has rightly awarded the compensation to the applicants, as such there is no necessity to interfere with the findings of the learned Commissioner and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶42

Perused the evidence available on record. Applicant No.l, who is the wife of dcceased was exarnined as AW. l, has reiterated the avcrments of the application. AW. 2, co_driver, in his chief examination, deposed that he was appointed as additional driver on the said lorry only 15 days prior to the incident and the deceased was the original permanent driver of the said lorry. He lurther deposed that the deceased drove the said lorry in drorvsy position and there was no hygienic food on the way to Visakhapatnam from Suryapet and the death of the deceased is incidental to the work entrusted to the deceased and the deceascd died during the course and out of his

¶43

a.:

¶44

MGP,J Citl,l No 643 of)012

¶45

¶46

employment. In support of their contentions, AW. 1 relied upon Ex.A. l, police attested copy of FIR; Ex.A.2, police attested copy of inquest report; Ex.A.3, police attested copy of postmortem examination report; Ex.A.4, police attested copy of letter to FSL Department, AMC, Visakhapatnam; Ex.A.S, police attested copy of final opinion for cause of death; Ex.A.6, police attested copy of 16l statement of additional driver; Ex.A.7, original driving licence of the deceased; Ex.A.S, police attested copy of hnal report and Ex.A.9, way receipt from police IV Town Visakhapatnam to carry the dead body, to prove that the deceased died due to stomach ache, which arose out of and in course of the employment. Though AWs. I and 2 were cross_ examined at length, nothing was elicited to disbelieve their evidence.

¶47

The Assistant Manager of opposite party No. 2 was examined as RW. I , who deposed that the said lorry was insured vide policy bearing No. 55t1OO/31/6300OOOTZ2 winich was valid from O7.IO.2OO8 to 06. 1O.2OO9 and the same is subsisting as on the date of death of the deceased. He further deposed that the deceased died while sleeping. Furthermore, in Ex.A.l, it was mentioned that the deceased died while he was sleeping. In Ex.AS, it iwas mentioned that the deccased died as respiratory and circulatory failure due to meningitis. tf at all

¶48

¶49

MOP,J CMA No 64 3 of 2012

¶50

the deceased was not having any problem, then certainly he would not have slept during the working hours. Since the deceased was struggling to drive the said lorry due to inconvenience arising out of stomach ache, he slept after taking tablets. Therefore, it is evident from Exs.A. 1, A.2 and A.5 that the deceased died due to stomach ache and respiratory and circulatory failure due to meningitis during the course of his employment. Exs.A. I and A.2 clearly discloses that the deceased was working as driver on the lorry bearing No. AP 28 X 351O and on 18.04.20O9 and started from Hyderabad to Visakhapatnam by driving the said lorry and on 18.O4.2OO9 at about 02:O0 a.m., u,hen thc said bus reached near outskirts of Visakhapatnam City, the deceased felt uneasiness and informed the same to co-driver and the deceased took nap after taking tablets. At about 1 1:O0 a.m, u,hen the co-driver tried to wake up and as there was no response from the deceased, immediately, the deceased shifted to KG hospital, where the doctors declared the deceased died. So, it is vcry much evident that the deceased was continuously driving the said lorry from Hyderabad on L7.O4.2OO9 to Visakhapatnam on 18.04.2OOq till O2:OO a.m., and developed stomach ache due to stress and strain and the deceased^q,as declared as brought dead by the hospital authorities.

¶51

¶52

IIGP..I ( 1l.l ,\o 611a|)0t )

¶53

[t is pertinent to state that it is not the case of the applicants that the deceased died soon after starting his said lorry. It is clear that the deceased started driving thc said lorry on 17.O4.2OO9 and died on the next day. Furthermore, it is an admitted fact that the deceased was driving the said lorry in heavy traffic from evening to next day morning, obviously he might suffered with stress and strain and have aggravated his disease even if he had been suflering with stomach ache. Hence, it cannot be claimed that the deceased might have died due to natural death. As stated above, driving of the said lorry in a heavy traffic, obviously cause stress and strain even for a normal person. Further Ex.A.S police attested copy of hnal opinion for cause of death also discloses that thc cause o[ death is due to 'respiratory and circulatory failure due to meningitis,. The evidence of RW. 1 also discloses that the deceased died while he was taking rest after driving the said lorry. Therefore, it is clearly established that the deceased died while driving the said lorry due to stress and strain from evening till morning on the next day. Hence, after considering all these aspects, the commissioner has rightly came to the conclusion that the deceased died out of and in the coursc of his employment as driver of the said lorry of opposite party No. l.

¶54

MCP ,1 CMl No 6a3 of 2Ot 2

¶55

¶56

¶57

Coming to the compensation, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Commissioner has taken the wages of the deceased at Rs.4,OOO/- per month by considering the minimum wages fixed by the government during the relevant point of time and by applying relevant factor of '199.4O', awarded Rs.3,98,8OO/ - towards compensation, an amount of Rs.758/- towards stamp fee and Rs.SOO/- towards Advocate fee. Thus, in all, the Commissioner has awarded Rs.4,00,098/- to the appticants, which is just and reasonable. Therefore, this Court does no[ hnd any ground to interfere with the hndings of the Commissioner, as the Commissioner has not committed any illegalities or irregularities while passing the impugned order. Hence, there are no merits in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and it is liable to be dismissed.

¶58

Accordingly, the Civit Miscellancous Appeal is dismissed There shall be no order as to costs.

¶59

Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶60

SDIB.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT^RE.9ISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶61

To, 1. The^{Commissioner, Employees Compensationand.AssistantCommissioner} of Labour_tV,^{rnrs enrrjllii6 cr[.. n.ro uyderabad(withrecords)} 2. One^{CC to Sri P. Harinath GuotaAdvocate lur\Jwl} .3. ;;; A iI sri cn,no"i'h somavarapu' A-dvocate [oPUCl

¶62

; 5;;;;^{io sri c rt'r Prakash' Advocate [oPUc]}

¶63

Two^{CD Copies}

KP/plp

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 10912023

JUDGMENT

CMA.No.643 ot 2012

'(-'.
'{ci'' ,i' ; -i:. .t..
'(/<br>5oo 01 ltAfl 28?{ 1,: ]:
*
t'i ,!
Og

¶71

DISMISSING THE C.M.A. WITHOUT COSTS

¶72

+.C.4 tu

The Divisional Manager, Nicl, Hyd. v. Redapaka Mamatha [Sakkubai] and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Manager, Nicl, Hyd. v. Redapaka Mamatha [Sakkubai] and 4 Others

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

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Sri Thimmappa , Thimmanna and 2 Others

The Nationla Insurance Co.Ltd.Hyd. Vs Susheela Bai and Anr.

National Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad. Vs Smt. Barre Ramana and 5 Others

Union of India Vs Macha Mahesh Babu

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Sri S. Sakeer and Another

Ramanuja Rama Priya, Vs The State of Telangana