Dismissed

Hdfc Ergo Genaral Insurance Company Limited v. Mamidi Sandhya and 4 others

Telangana HC22 Nov 2023CMA/939/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An insurance company appealed against the Commissioner's order awarding compensation for an employee's death in a tractor accident. The High Court held that factual disputes regarding the driver at the time of accident are non-justiciable before it under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed without costs.

Hdfc Ergo Genaral Insurance Company… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENry SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶6

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 939 OF 2019

¶7

.^{Appejll-Under Section30Workmen'sCompensation Act, 1923, againstthe Order} dated 17-07-2019 in EC.No.26 of 2016 passed by the Coilmissioner for fmploye-es^{compensationand Deputy Commissionerof Labour I HyderabadT} Anjaya Karmika Sankshema Bhavan, RTC Cross Road Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

HDFC ERGO Genaral lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its Claims_Manager,2n floor, 6-3-346/1, Opir JilagamVengal Rao park A6ove Scotia Bank.Road Nol,Banjara Hills, Hydeiabad'

¶10

...Appella nUOpposite Party No.2

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Mamidi Sandhya Wo late Nageswara Rao Age 29 years, Occ Coolie native of Singareddypalem, Nelakondapalli,Village an<i' Mandal Khammam District presently residing at Ramanthapur Hyd-erabad.

¶13

2 Mamidi Swathi, D/o Late Nageswara rao Aoe 14 years, Occ student ( Respondent No.2 being miior,represente-O Oy tris mother Respondent No..1 L^native of Singareddypalem, Nelakondapalli,Village and Mandbl Khammam District presently residing at Ramanthapiir Hyderabad.

¶14

J Mamidi Sathyam, S/o Mangaiah, Age 65 years , Occ Coolie, native of Singareddypalem, Nelakondapalli,Village and Mandal Khammam District presently residing at Ramanthapur Hyderabad.

¶15

4 M.amidi Laxmi, Wo Sathyam Age 54 years ,Occ House wife native of Srngareddypalem, Nelakondapalli,Village Mandal Khammam District presently residing at Ramanthapur Hyderabad.^-

¶16

... Respondents/Applicants

¶17

5 Boinapalli Srinivasa Rao, S/o Saranja Rao, Age major, Occ agriculture - Cumowner of tractor and trailer bearing No Ap 20 TC S2&land Ap20 TC52BI, R/o HNo 2-7512, Singareddypalem, Nelakonilapalli Village and Mandal Khammam District

¶18

...Respondents/Opposite Party No.1

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstanc€)s stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including Withdrawal of amount depos ted as per the order passed in E.C No 26 of 2016 dated 17-07 -2019 on the file of the Commissioner for Employees compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour I HyderabaQ T Anjaya Karmika Sankshema Bhavan RTC Cross road Hyderabad pending disposal of the appeal ln the interest ofjustice.

¶21

Gounsel for the Appellant : SRl. M SATISH REDDY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4 : SRI.NAGESWARA RAO REF'AKULA

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents No.S : None appeared

¶24

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶26

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.939 OF 2O19

¶27

JUDGMENT:

¶28

Aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, T.Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavanam, RTC Cross Roads, Hyderabad in E.C. No.26 of 2016 dated 17.O7.2019, the opposite party No.2-HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited has filed the present appeal.

¶29

For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the Commissioner.

¶30

The brief facts ofthe case, are as under:

¶31

The applicants who are the wife , daughter and parents of the deceased-Mamidi Nageswara Rao (hereinafter will be refer.red as 'deceased ) filed an application claiming compensation of Rs.20 lakhs on account of the death of the deceased who dred in the accident that occurred on 6.8.2015. According to the applicants, the deceased workman was working as driver on tractor and trailer bearing Nos. AP 20 TC 5282 and AP 20'lC 5281. White so, on 6.8.2015 at about 12-30 hours the deceased was on duty as a driver on the tractor and trailer and proceeded in order to

¶32

¶33

M'GP,,1 cA4A 939 2019

¶34

transport soil from Kothur Buchaiah fields to^{Kamesh heldsand} when he reached Chigur-upati Venkateswarlu sugar cane helds, all of a sudden, buffalos herd came across the road, then^{the dece:rsed} in order to avoid accident applied sudden brakes and^{lost control} over the steering, as a result, the deceased^{fell on the road and the} left middle tyre of the tractor ran over the deceased,^{due to wttich,} his body was crushed. Immediately he^{was shifted to hospital and} while undergoing treatment, the deceased died on the^{same day} night at about 22-00 hours. Thus, the deceased^{died during the} course and out of his employment as^{a driver} on^{the saidtrz.ctor} and trailer under the opposite party^No. 1. The Pclice, Nelakondapally P.S. had registered a case^{in crimeNo.127 of2'.O 15} under Section 304-A of IPC. According to the^{applicants, the} deceased was being paid Rs.S,OOO/-^{per month towards his wages} apart from batha of Rs. 150/-^per day^{by the opposite party lIo.1.} Due to the sudden demise of the deceased, the applicants^{lost :heir} source of income. Hence the claim.

¶35

Opposite party No.1 frled counter^{admitting the ownership} of the tractor and trailer bearing No.^{AP 20 TC 5282 and 5281 and} contended that the said tractor was insured with the^opposite party No.2 and the policy was valid from 16.10.2014 to 15.1O.1)015 and also admitted the employment of the deceased^{and his wages.}

¶36

.irt:-e1!;;tilrtttt : .. ;-lii8Bdre*iti,

AIGP../ cMA 939 2019

However, he denied his liability and prayed to dismiss the claim against him.

¶42

Opposite party No.2 filed counter denying the averments of

¶43

the application, manner of the accident, age, avocation, wages and the relationship of employee-employer and further contended that the deceased was not having valid driving license and therefore, prayed to dismiss the application.

¶44

Based on the above pleadings, the learned Commissioner has

¶45

framed the following issues:

¶46

l. Whether tlrc deceased u_tas a utorkmon within the meaning of the Act and died due to the injuies sustained in the accident that occared on 6.8.2015 during the course and out of his emplogment as a diuer under the emplogment of tte 7"t opposite partA on the tractor and troiler bearirLg No. AP 20 1:S 5282 and Ap 20 TC S2B j?

¶47

If ges, utho are liable to paA compensation to the dependants of the deceased?

¶48

What is the amount of compensatton entitled bg the dependants of lhe d.eceased?

¶49

Before the Commissioner, the applicant No. I was examined as AW. 1 apart from examining AW.2 and got marked Exs.Al to P'72. On behalf of the opposite party No. 1, RW. 1 was examined

¶50

¶51

¶52

l,t(lP,J cI[A 939²⁰¹⁹

¶53

riri

¶54

andtrxs.B2to86weremarked.onbehalfofoppositepartyNrl.2, RW.2 was^{examinedand Exs.B1and 87 were marked'}

¶55

The learned^{Commissioner after evaluating the oral and} documentary^{evidenceavailable on record, has awardedthe} compensation^{of Rs.7,1O,532/-'Aggrievedby the same' the} lnsurance^{Company has preferred the present appeal'}

¶56

g. Heard Sri^{M.SatishReddy, learned StandingCounselfor the} appellant-lnsurance^{Companyand Sri RepakulaNageswara'lao'} learned counsel^{for the applicantsand perusedthe record'}

¶57

lo.ThemaincontentionofthelearnedStandingCounselfol.the appellant-Insurance^{Companyis that though thereis no employee-} employer^{relationship betweenthe opposite partyNo' 1 andthe} deceased, and^{even as per the F I'R', at the time of acciden - the} deceased^{was not drivingthe vehicle, in fact, he was Sitting o11 the} mud guard of^{the tractor and another person bylrame} Pagidikanthula^{Prasadwas driving the vehicle'Henccpray':d to} ailow the appeal^{by setting aside the Orderpassed by the iezrrned} Commissioner.

¶58

ll.Percontra,thelearnedcounselfortheapplicantsargued that after considering all^{the aspects,the learned Commiss;ioner} *^{has rightlyawardedthe compensationto the applicantsalld as}

)

MGP,.] cMA 939 20 t9

such, interference of this Court is unu,arrant.cd. [-Ience prayed to dismiss the appeal

¶63

Now the point for consideration is whether the order passed by the learned Commissioner is sustarnable under law?

¶64

This Court has perused thc entire evidence and the documents filed by both the parties. AW. 1 who is the wife of the deceased has reiterated the averments of the application. The complainant is the father of the deccascd. llowevcr, based on the information he has given report to the policc. Admittedly, he is not an eyewitness to the accident and as such the applicants got examined AW.2. AW.2 in his evidence categorically narrated the manner of accident and further staLed in his cross-examination that his name is reflected in lhe final rcport. He denied the suggestion that he is not an eyewitness to the accident and that the deceased rvas not driving the vehiclc at thc time of incident and also denied that he is deposing false in order to help the applicants.

¶65

The opposite party No. 1 was examined as RW. 1 and he has reiterated the averments of his counLer. In the cross-examination he stated that the deceased was traclor driver and he was working for him and the deceased was being paid Rs.8,OOO/- per month

@:::;1.,

lv.'G P.J cMA 939 2019

¶70

towards wages and Rs.15O/- per day as batha and at the tinre of accident, the deceased was driving the tractor. He denied the suggestion that the dcceascd is not working as driver nor paid any amount and Insurancc Company is not liable to pay the compensation. FIe further denied the suggestion that at the tirne of accident the deceased was not driving the tractor ancl one prasad was driving the tractor and the deceased was sitting on the mud guard at the time of accident and that the dri',,er was not having valid driving license and the deceased was travelling r1s a passenger. RW.1 has flted Ex.B2 certified copy o[ 161 Cr.p.C. statement recorded by the Police, Nelakondapally P.S., Ex.B3 copy of registration certificate, Ex.84 original insurance policy, F)x,85 xerox copy of permit and Ex.B6 xerox copy of fitness certificzrte of the tractor.

¶71

On behalf of the opposite party No.2, RW.2 was exanined and he stated that the complaint given by the applicant No.1, who is father of the deceased alleging that one Pagidikathula p:asad was driving the tractor and trailer and the deceased was sitti;rg on the left side mud guard and therefore, opposite party No.2 js not liable to pay compensation. I,lx.B 1 xerox copy of F.l.R. and lIx.B7 true copy of insurance policy issued in respect of tractor and trailer of opposite party No. 1. He accepted that the policy was in for.ce as

¶72

¶73

lvlc P,J c:MA 939 2019

¶74

-77

¶75

on the date of accident and they have appointed an lnvestigator to ascertain the truth of the accident. Flowever, admitted that he has not filed the investigator's report. .IIe denicd the suggestion that the deceased was driving the vehicle and that the deceased was having valid driving license at lhe timc ol accident and there was employee and employer relationship between the opposite party No. 1 and the deceased and that the deceased died during the course of employment.

¶76

It is pertinent to state that thc rcport given by the father of the deceased is only based on thc inlbrmation given by the persons who stated about the accident. A pcrusal of the report also discloses that the complainant i.e. fathcr of thc deceased is an illiterate, as such, he has afhxed his thumb impression and there is no evidence to show that the persons who have given report are aware about the name of the driver o[ Lhc traclor. Even assuming for a moment, if Pagidikathula Prasad is driving the vehicle, definitely he would have also sustained injuries in the accident. As per the record, there is no such cvidence to show that Pagidikathula Prasad has sustained injurics. Further the final report also discloscs based on the cvidcncc ol live witncsses i.e., LWs.4 to 7 that Pagidikathula Prasad is not present at the scene of offence and he is busy with his work at LW. 13 paddy field and

If'

IV,'GP,J cMA 939 2019

¶81

cultivating by anothcr LracLor by LW.1. Therefore , it is clear that Pagidikathula Prasad is not driving the tractor at the tirre of accident. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that at the time of accident, the deceased was driving the vehicle and in the accident lhe deceased susta:ined injuries and succumbcd to thc same. Therefore, the contentirtn of the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company that at the time of accident, the deceased was not driving tl-re vehicle and sitting on the mud guard and Pagidikathula Prasad is drivin3 the vehicle is unsustainable.

¶82

Whether there is employer-employee relationship bet,veen the applicant and oppositc party No.1 is a question of fact anrl not a question of law. The Honourable Supreme Court in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujathar held as under:

¶83

"9. At the outset, ue mag take note of the fact, being a settled pinciple, that the question as to uhether the emplogee met u-tith an accident, whether *e accident occurred duing the course of emplogment, uthether it arose out of an emplogment, hout and in ushat manner the accident occurred, u.tho u.tas negligent in causing the occident, whether there existed any relationship of employee and employer, uthctt u.tas the age and monthly salary of the emplogee, how many dre the dependents of the deceased emplogee, the ertent of disabilitg caused to the emplogee due to injuries suffered in an

¶84

'^{(2019) I r sccs14}

¶85

¶86

,VGP,,] ci,t_l 939 2019

¶87

I I

¶88

accident, uhether there uos any itsurance coueroge obtained bg the employer lo couer the incident etc. are some of the material is.sue.s u-tltich anse for the just decision of the Commisstoner in a claim petition when an emploAee suffers any bodily injury or dies during the course of his emplogment and he/ his LRs sue(s) his employer to claim compensation under the Act.

¶89

The aforementioned questions are essentially the questions of fact and therefore, thell are required to be proued with the aid of evidence. Once tley are proued either wag, the Jindings recorded thereon are regarded as the lindings of fact.

¶90

The appeal prouided urLder Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner lies only agairtst the specific orders set out in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 30 of the Act uith a furtlrcr ider contoined in the ftrst prouiso to the section thot the appeal must inuolue substantictl questions of law.

¶91

In other uords, the appeal prouided under Section 30 of the Act to the Hiqh Court ogainst the order of the Commissioner ts not like a regular first appeal akin to Section 96 of the Code of Ciuil Procedure, 1908 which can be heard both on facts and lanu.^'l'he appellate^{jurisdictiort} of the High Court to decide the appeal is confined onlg to examine the substanttal questions of law aising in the. case."

¶92

In view of the principle laid dou,n in thc above said authority, it is clear that the above contention of thc a ppcllant - Insurance Company is not based on a question of law but it is purely a question of fact, which cannot be raised bcforc this Court as per Section 3O of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

¶93

¶94

---\qt,n-1"dflltFl llHt 't \ . t.. .-I,y-

¶95

MGP,,I cMA 939 20t9

¶96

Nou. coming Lo thc compensation, according to the applicants, the deceased was aged 32 years and the deceased was getting salary of Rs.8,0O0/- per month. However, as the applicants failed to produce any valid cvidence, the learned Commissioner has taken the incomc of the dcccased according to the minimum wages hxed by the erstwhile Government of Andhra pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.83, L.E.T & F (Lab.tt) Department, dated 26.1 1.2006, at Rs.6,936.75 per month and by applying the relevant factor of '203.85', award<:d compcnsarion ot Rs.7,O7,O28/-. The learned Commissioner furlhcr awarded Rs. 1,5O4/- towards stamp fee and Rs.2,00O/- towards Advocate fee. Thus in all the compensttion awarded to the applicants is Rs.7,10,532/-, which is just and reasonable.^'I'herefore, this Court does not find any grout-rd Lo interfere with the findings of the learned Commissioner. Hence, there are no merits in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and it is liable to be dismissed.

¶97

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no ordcr as Lo costs.

¶98

Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed

¶99

SD/- K SRINIVASA RAO, JOINT RE:GISTRAR.

//TRUE COPY//

SECTI OFFICER

To,

The Commissioner for Employees compensation and Deputy Cornmissioner of Labour I Hyderabad T Anjaya Kaimika Sankshema Bhavan RTC Cross Road Hyderabad

¶105

One CC to SRl. M SATISH REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶106

2 Ana.'I^ r^^qPt NlAa:trRrArApA pAr) RtrpAl(t A A.trr/r.2ta topl lt:l

HIGH COURT

DATED:2211112023

JUDGMENT

CMA.No.939 of 2019

l ttE s'Lt I(+
(
q
((.,
3 23 Fi:B 2!A C)
-1.
*

¶113

DISMISSING THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶114

(Oc'P.og

¶115

I⁾⁺

Hdfc Ergo Genaral Insurance Company Limited v. Mamidi Sandhya and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Ergo Genaral Insurance Company Limited v. Mamidi Sandhya and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bathini Pochaiah Vs The Union of India

Ganta Chinnaiah Vs Subash Chandra Bose Yuvajana Sangam and Anr.

Kuruva Gangamma and 3 Others Vs Union of India

P.Sailoo, Nizamabad Vs M.Ramesh Chary and Another, Nizamabad

New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs M.Sharad and Another

Asiya Begum , Asha Begum and 5 Others Vs S Ram Reddy and Another