Dismissed

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. C. Susheelamma and 2 Others

Telangana HC18 Nov 2023CMA/680/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a workmen's compensation appeal, the High Court dismissed the insurance company's challenge to a compensation order awarding Rs. 4.02 Lakhs to the deceased driver's parents. The court held that the accident occurred during employment and the appeal lacked merit.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed confirming the order dated 17.08.2007 awarding compensation to the applicants.

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s3 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

SATURDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶6

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 680 OF 2013

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, aggrieved by the Orders dated 17.08.2007^passed in WC.No. 59 of²⁰⁰⁵ on the file of^the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and^Assistant Commissioner of Labour-l : Sri T. Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavanam : RTC Cross^{Roads at} Hyderabad.

¶8

Befurcen:

¶9

United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its^Divisional Manager, 10-5-514, Crystal Plaza, Moosapet, Hyderabad.

¶10

...APPELLANT/ OP.No.2

¶11

AND

¶12

Smt. C. Susheelamma, W/o. C. Malla Reddy,Age:^{50 years,Occ: Housewife,} R!/o. H.No. 2-2-11641D, Shivam Road, Hyderabad.

¶13

Mr. c. Yella Reddy,, S/o. C. Malla Reddy, Age: 20^years, Occ: Student,^Rl/o. h.No. 2-2-1 164/D, Shivam Road, Hyderabad.

¶14

Sri D. Thirupathi Reddy,, S/o. Narasimha Reddy, Owner of the Lorry^Bearing No. AP 29T 3699 R/o. Plot No. 33, SBH Colony, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District, Hyderabad-74.

¶15

(Appeal against R3 dismissed for default vide court order daled 27.12.2O12)

¶16

...RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS 1,2 & OP.No. 1

¶17

l.A. NO:zOF?JO7(CMAMP. NO: 2371 OF²⁰⁰⁷⁾

¶18

Petition under Section¹ 51 of CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High} Court may be pleased suspend the order passed in W.C.No-59 of 2005 dated 17.O8.2O07 on the file of the Commissioner for^{Workmen's Compensation} and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-1, T.^Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavanam, at Hyderabad.

¶19

CotrEd^{for dFE ApFllant:Sri N. MOHAN} KRISHNA

¶20

Cousel forReryten|sl^{& 2 :Sri l.} GOPAL REDDY

¶21

The^{CouIt deliveredtfc folloarirg: JUDGMENT}

¶22

¶23

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶24

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.68O of 2Ol3

¶25

JUDGMENT:

¶26

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against order dated 17.O8.2OO7 in^{W.C.No.59 of 2005 on the file of the} Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and^Assistant Commissioner of Labour -I,^{Hyderabad (hereinafter referred} to^{as 'the} Commissioner'). The said case^was filed by^{respondentNos. 1 and 2} herein seeking compensation for death of^{one Challa Nagi Reddy} (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') in an accident that^occurredon 24.O2.2OO5 and the sarne was^{partly allowedby the Commissioner} granting compensation of Rs.4,O2,oO9/-. Aggrieved by the^{same, the} present Cirril Miscellaneous Appeal is filed at the instance of^the insurance company i.e., opposite^{parry No.2 beforethe Commissioner.}

¶27

The appellant herein is opposite party No.2,^{respondentNos. I} and 2 herein are applicants and^{respondent No.3 herein is opposite} party No.1 before the Commissioner. For the^{sake of convenience, the} parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed^beforethe Commissioner.

¶28

The facts of the case of the applicants are that^{they are parents} of the deceased and they have liled the^{presentclaim petitionseeking}

¶29

¶30

MGP.J cMA 680 201 3

¶31

compensation of Rs.5,0O,OOO/- on account of death of the dr:ceased. The deceased was working as workman i.e., driver on lorry bearing No.AP 29 T 3699, which is owned by opposite^party No.1. On 22.O2.2OO5, the deceased was proceeding as driver on the szLid lorry from Rayapur of Maharashtra State towards Hyderabad through Siddipet with load of binding wire. While so, on 24.02.2005, when the lorry reached outskirts of Lakshmakkapalli village on Rajeev Highway, the cleaner of the lorry drove the lorry in rash and negligent rnanner, due to which he lost control over the lorry and it turned turtle. The deceased sustained grievous injuries in the said accident and succumbed to the same, while he was being shifted to Kamineni Hospital, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. Based on the complaint, a crrse was registered in Crime No.4 of 2OO5 on the frle of Mulugu Police^rStation. The deceased was being paid wages at Rs.4,000/- per mc,nth by opposite party No.1. He was 28 years old as on the date of ar:cident. The lorry of opposite party No.1 was insured with opposite party No.2 with effective policy valid from 13.04.2004 to 12.O4.2OO5. Hence, the applicants filed the present claim petition seeking compensation from both the opposite parties.

¶32

MCP,J cMA 680 20 t3

¶33

Opposite party No.l remained ex parte. Opposite party No.2 filed its counter denying the existence of employee and employer relationship between the deceased and opposite party No.l. It also denied the manner of the incident, age of the deceased and also wages paid to him. It also stated that the driver of the lorry was not having valid driving license at the time of the accident.

¶34

In support of their case, the applicants got examined A.W. 1 and got marked Exs.A-l to A-8. Opposite party No.2 got examined R.W.1 and got marked Ex.B-1, in support of their case.

¶35

On the basis of the above pleadings and evidence, the Commissioner framed the following issues for consideration:

¶36

"l.Whether the deceased workman, late Sri C. Nagi Reddy met with an accident on 24.O2.2OO5 during the course and out of his employment as a driver on the lorry bearing No.Ap 29 T 3699 in the employment of the l"t opp.party and succumbed to the injuries while being shifted to hospital?

¶37

If yes, who are liable to pay compensation to the dependants of the deceased?

¶38

What is the amount of compensation entitled by the dependants of the deceased?"

¶39

After considering the evidence and documents filed by both sides, the Commissioner awarded an amount of Rs.4,O2,009/_ towards compensation to the applicants. Aggrieved by the same, the

MGP,J CMA 680 2013

present^{appealis filed at the instanceof oppositeparty No 2 i'e', the} insurance^company.

¶44

Heard, both sides.

¶45

g. The main contention^{of the learnedcoun selfor}

¶46

appellant/^{opposite party No.2 i.e., the insurance company i:; that as} per Ex.B- 1-insurance^{policy, itonly covers one driver and six} labourers.^{The deceased was second driver and as such he is not} covered under^{the said policy. However,the commissioner without} considering the^{same has awarded compensationto the applicants.} Hence,^{prayed to set asidethe said order by allowing the' present} appeal.

¶47

Per contra,^{the learned counsel for respondentNos' 1and} 2 / applicants^{contendedthat the commissionerafter consiclering all} the aspects^{has rightly granted compensationto the applic antsand} interference^of this^{Court is not required.}

¶48

I 1. Now,^{the point for determination is as follows:}

¶49

"Whether the applicants are entitled for compensatlon as granted by the Commissioner?"

MGP,J cMA 680 20t3

't::,t: .::a

Point:-

This Court has perused the entire evidence ald documents placed on record by both the parties. Applicant No.1, who is mother of the deceased was examined on behalf of applicants reiterating her pleadings in the claim petition. She also relied upon Exs.A- I to A-g. Ex.A-l is copy of First Information Report. Ex.A-2 is copy of representation regarding alteration of section of law. Ex.A-3 is copy of charge sheet. Ex.A-4 is copy of inquest report. Ex.A-S is copy of postmortem examination report. Ex.A-6 is Motor Vehicle Inspector report. Ex.A-7 is original driving license of the deceased ald Ex.A-g is copy of driving license of accused driver. The Commissioner after considering the evidence and documents has awarded compensation which is reasonable and interference of ttris Court is not necessa-ry.

¶55

The main ground pleaded by opposite party No.2-insurarrce company is that though premium was collected, it only covers risk of one driver ald six labourers and the risk of the deceased is not covered as per Ex.B- 1 insurance policy. In this regard, it is pertinent to state that the word employer is defined under Workmen,s Compensation Act, 1923 at Section 2 (e) as under:

¶56

"(e) "employe/ includes any body of persons whether incorporated or not and any managing agent of an employer and the legal representative of a deceased employer, and, when

(

MGP,J cMA 680 20 13

the services of a workman are temporarily Ient or let on hire tl another person by the person with whom the workman has entered into a contract of service or apprenticeship, means such other person while the workman is working for him;"

¶61

Admittedly,^the lorry was driven by cleaner at the tim,: of the accident.^However, a^perusal of Ex.A-3-charge sheet, wherein police investigation was done reveals that the person who was dri.ring the vehicle at the date of accident was 2.d driver-cum-cleaner. Thi:t proves that the^deceasedwas main driver of the lorry involved in the accident. Ex.A-6 i.e., the report of motor vehicle inspector also reveals ::hat the accident occurred to the lorry bearing No.AP 29 T 3699 and the deceased died in the said accident. Therefore, it is clear that the accident occurred during the course and out of employmen!: of the deceased^with opposite party No.1 and that the deceased was ernployee of opposite^party No.l.

¶62

It is also pertinent to state that ttre Ex.B-l policy covers risk of one driver and six labourers/workmen and the policy was in lbrce as on the date of the accident. When, opposite party No.2 i.e., inr;urance company collected premium to cover the risk of seven employees including the driver, it cannot evade its liability to indemnify opposite party No. 1. The commissioner after considering all the aspe:ts has rightly come to the conclusion and awarded compensation for which

M(; P,J cMA 680 20tl

interference of this Court is unwarranted. The appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶67

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated r7.0g.2oo7 in w.c.No.S9 of 2005 on the fire of the Commissioner for Workmen,s Compensation and Assistant commissioner of Labour -I, Hyderabad. There shalr be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶68

SD/. B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT G //TRUE COPY//

¶69

SECTION OFFICER

¶70

To,

¶71

The commissioner for workmen's compensation and Assistant commissioner of Labour-l : sri r. Anjaiah Karmika samkshema ghavanam : RTC Cross Roads at Hyderabad. (with records, if any) 2. One CC to Sri N. MOHAN KRISHNA, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to Sri l. GOPAL REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies

Njb/jak

t$r

HIGH COURT

DATED:1811112023

,/-/... ,.. .:
I
1
/,

JUDGMENT

CMA.No.680 of 2013

DISMISSING THE

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL

¶81

\2,
').
xQ'

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. C. Susheelamma and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. C. Susheelamma and 2 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

Rayapathi Mahabob and Anr. Vs the South Central Railway

Chotu Miya,( Shaik Faqruddin) Vs Mohammed Suleman,Goremiya

K. Pushpa Vs K. Shantha Bai Shantha

The United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Bodukuri Sammaiah and 2 Others

Papitham Mary and 3 Others Vs Union of India

Bingi Yellamma and 4 Others Vs the Asst. Commissioner Endowments and Another