Appeal Under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation^{Act, against the Order} made in W.C.No.30 of 1997 daled 27-03-2006 on^{the file} of^{the Court of the} Commissioner for workmen's Compensation and^{Assistant Commissioner of Labour,}

¶8

Warangal-l

¶9

Between:

¶10

The United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Represented^{by its Divisional} Manager, The Divisional Manager United lndia^{lnsurance Company Limited} Divisional Office at H.No.11/1582,^P.8.No.75, MG^{Road,Warangal,} ) (O.P.No.2 in the W.C. Case)

¶11

...Appellant

¶12

AND

¶13

Bodukuri Sammaiah, S/o. Komaraiah, Occ-^{Agricultrue, R/o. Nagaram} Village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District.

¶14

Bodukuri Komala, Wo. Sammaiah,^{Occ-Household,Rl/o.Nagaram Village,} Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District.

¶15

Bodikuntla Ganesh Babu, S/o. Swarugnath,^{Occ- Proprietor Kisan Lorry} Transport Limited, Near Urvasi Hotel,^{Old Beet Bazar,Warangal.}

¶16

(Appeal against R3 dismissed for default vide court order dated 22-12-2011 )

¶17

...Respondents

¶18

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. B. NARAYANA^{REDDY, Advocate}

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2:^{Smt. .P SAKUNTALA, Advocate}

¶20

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶21

HONOT'RABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRTYADARSINI

¶22

CTVIL MISCELLI\ITEOUS APPEAL^{No.759of 2013}

¶23

JUDGMENT:

¶24

I . The present Civil Miscellaneous^{Appeal has beendirected} against order dated 27.O3.2006 in^{W.C.No.3O of 1997 on the file of the} Commissioner for Workmen's^{Compensation andAssistant} Commissioner of l,abour, Warangal-I,^{(hereinafter referredto as 'the} Commissioner'). The said^{case was filed by respondentNos.1 and2} herein seeking compensation for death^{of one Badukuri Ganesh} (hereinafter referred to as 'deceasedJ in an^{accident that occurredon} 14.06.1996 and the same was allowed by^{the Commissioner granting} compensation of Rs.^1, 1O,005/-.^{Aggrieved by the same,the present} Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is frted^{at the instance of the insurance} company i.e., opposite party No.2 before^{the Commissioner.}

¶25

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

¶26

The claim petition is liled by the^{applicants,r.r'hoare father and} mother of the deceased seeking^{compensationof Rs. 1,50,O00/ -for}

¶27

¶28

MGP,J'I. cMA 7s9 2013

¶29

death of the deceased on 14.06.1996.^{According to the applicants,the} deceased was working as cleaner on the lorry^{bearing No. APO p242} under the employment of opposite party^No. 1.^{While so, on} 14.06.1996, the deceased along with the driver^of the^{vehicle went to} Keshavapatnam on the instructions of opposite^partyNo. l.^However, opposite party No.l sent information to the^{applicants that their son} was suffering from vomiting, as such he^{was shifted to MGM Hospital,} Warangal, where he died. According to the applicants, the^deceased was aged about 22 years, at the time of incident^{and he was working} as cleaner. He was being paid an amount of^{Rs. 1,000/-by opposite} party No.I towards salary. As the death occurred, while he^was working as cleaner i.e., during the course^and out of^{his emploJment} with opposite party No. 1, the present application is^{liled by the} applicants. The applicants claim that both^{the oppositeparties are} jointly and severally liable to pay compensation for death of tl.e deceased.

¶30

Opposite party No.1 fiIed his counter admitting^{the employment} of the deceased on the lorry owned by him. He also admitted^the salary paid to the deceased and stated that the^{deceaseddied during} the course of employment with him. He stated that^{the cause of death} was stomach^pain, diarrhea and vomiting. It^{is his case} that^{the death}

MGP,J cMA 759 2013

of the deceased was natural death, as such he is not liable to pay any compensation. Further, he stated that the lorry bearing No.nPO 32+2 was insured with opposite party No.2 with insurance policy valid from 11.O9.1995 to 12.O9.1996. Therefore, if there is any liability, opposite part5r No.2 is liable to pay compensation.

¶35

Opposite party No.2 hled its counter denying the employee and employer relationship between the deceased and opposite party No.1. It also denied the manner of the incident, age of the deceased and also wages paid to him. It is stated that tJle death of the deceased was natural.

¶36

In support of their case, the applicants got examined p.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-l to A-7. Opposite party No.l got examined one A.Venkateshwarlu as R.W. 1, but did not adduce any documentary evidence. Opposite party No.2 did not adduce any evidence.

¶37

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

¶38

"l.Whether the deceased Bodukuri Ganesh is a workman as per the provisions of the Act, he died due to grievous injuries in an accident arising out of his employment?

¶39

What was the age of the deceased at the time of accident?

¶40

What were thc wages paid to the deceased at the time of accident?

¶41

¶42

MGP,J^T cMA 759 20t3

¶43

How much quantum of compensation payable?

¶44

Who is liable to pay the compensation?"

¶45

After considering the evidence and documents filed by both sides, the Commissioner awarded an arnount of Rs. 1,1O,OOS/_ towards compensation to the applicants. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed at the instance of opposite party No.2 i.e., t]le insurance company.

¶46

Heard, both sides.

¶47

lO. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party No.2 is that the deceased died due to stomach pain, diarrhea and vomiting, which is clearly a natural death. Hence opposite party No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation under the provision of the Workrnenb Compensation Act, 1923.

¶48

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.I and 2/applicants contended that the commissioner has rightly considered the evidence placed on record and granted just and reasonable compensation to the applicants for the death of the deceased. The same requires no interference by this Court.

¶49

¶50

MGP,J cMA 759 20ll

¶51

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

¶52

"Whether the applicants are entitled^{for compensation} as granted by the Commissioner?"

¶53

Point:-

¶54

This Court perused the entire evidence^{placed on record.} Applicant No.1, who is father of the^{deceased was examined as P.W-l} and deposed reiterating the contents of the claim^petition.The applicants got examined one P. Sammi Reddy as^{P.W.2,who was} present at the panchayath which was held after the death of^the deceased.

¶55

In favour of opposite party No.l, the driver of the lorry in^which the deceased was employed was examined. He admitted that^the deceased was working as cleaner in the said lorry.^{He deposedthathe} was sent along with the deceased in the lorry to Keshavapatnam^with load of fertilizer bags. The deceased was well at the point of^loading and later, he complained uneasiness. After which, he did vomiting^for two to three times and he suffered from loose motions^also. Accordingly, he was taken to M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal, where^he died.

¶56

¶57

MGP,J^d. cMA 759 2013

¶58

The main^{contention of thelearned counsel for}

¶59

appellant/opposite^{part5i No.2 is that the death of the deceasedwas} natural death, as^{such he cannot be treated as dead during the course} and out of.his emplo5nnent.^{Therefore,insurancecomPany cannotbe} held liable for any^{comPensation.}

¶60

It is pertinent to^{state that admittedly the deceased died whilehe} was on duty as cleaner.^{The evidence of R.W. 1 showsthat theywere} travelting on the lorry^{owned by opposite party No' 1 with load of} fertilizer bags. It is^{alsodeposed by him that the deceased suffered} with vomiting and loose motions^{and then, he was shifted to hospital,} where he died. Under these circumstances,^{this Court is of the} considered view that^{the deceaseddied during and course of his} employment under^{opposite partyNo. 1. Oppositeparty No' I admitted} in his counter that the^{deceasedwas working under him as a cleaner.} The commissioner after^{considering all these aspects has rightly come} to the conclusion and held that^{both the opposite parties are} responsible and granted^just and^{reasonable compensation'Therefore'} interference of this Court into such^{findings is unwarranted'} The appeal is devoid of merits and^{the same is liable to be dismissed'}

¶61

¶62

MGP,J cMA 759 2013

¶63

lT,Intheresult,theCivilMiscellaneousAppealisdismissed confirming^{the order dated,27 .O3.2006 in W.c.No.3o of 1997 on the file} of the commissione.^{fo. wo.k-en'scompensationand Assistant} commissioner of^{Labour, warangal-I. Thereshall be no order as to} costs. Miscellaneous^{applicationspending,if any, shall stand closed.}

¶64

Sd/- B. S. CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECT]ON OFFICER

'L The Commissioner for workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Warangal-l (with records)

¶69

One CC to SRl. B, NARAYANA REDDY, Advocate TOPUCI

¶70

One CC to SRl. P. SAKUNTALA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶71

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:1811112023

JUDGMENT

CMA.No.759 of 2013

// 4."
ii::.
ti .)
i, ; 2fl FtBiil{
*
-.:
:-;-

¶78

DISMISSING THE CMA WITHOUT^COSTS.

¶79

The United India Insurance Company Limited v. Bodukuri Sammaiah and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

The United India Insurance Company Limited v. Bodukuri Sammaiah and 2 Others

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

Rayapathi Mahabob and Anr. Vs the South Central Railway

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

K. Pushpa Vs K. Shantha Bai Shantha

Papitham Mary and 3 Others Vs Union of India

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

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