CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS 1426 of 2011 on 7 December 2007

JUDGMENT:

Thepresentappealisfiledagainsttheorderdated28.04.2011in W.C.No.121 of 2008 passed by the Commissionerfor Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant CommissionerofLabour, Kadapa.

2. Facts leading to this appeal are as under; One Perugu Lakshminarayana/claimant was working aslorry Driver to the lorry bearing No.AP 27 V 7099 ownedbyO.P.No.1 since seven months prior to the date of accident.Theclaimant took the lorry to Bellary and got it loaded with iron ore togo to Krishnapuram.On 07.12.2007 at about 12.30 p.m.,[when]the vehicle reached near Gooty, the lorry was grounded[for][ want]of repairs. The claimant then went to the mechanic shed at Gootyandontheinstructionsofthemechanic,hewenttoAnanthapuram along with one Ranganayakulu on a motor cycleto procure the spare parts.At Ananthapuram one Adiseshaiahboarded the motor cycle and while they were returning to Gooty,themotorcyclecollidedagainstastationedTractorandconsequently, the claimant suffered injuries and fracture to his left

mandible and other parts of the body. The deceased[was][ shifted]to Government Hospital, Gooty and thereafter to Vijaya NursingHome, Proddatur and on the next day, he was shifted to SVIMS,Hospital, Tirupathi and from there to MIOT, Hospital,[Chennai][ on]10.12.2007 and was treated there as inpatient up to[25.12.2007.]

3. While the claimant was at Chennai Hospital, surgeries[were]performed on his hip and thereafter he had taken treatment[under]private doctors at Kadapa and also at Proddatur.It[was][ stated]that in spite of the treatment, the claimant became[disabled][ and]was unable to do his previous job as Driver and even[unable][ walk]forsmalldistances. Astheaccidentcausedlossof income.employmentasDriver,theapplicationwasfiledseekingcompensation of Rs.2,00,000/.performed on his hip and thereafter he had taken treatment[under]private doctors at Kadapa and also at Proddatur.It[was][ stated]that in spite of the treatment, the claimant became[disabled][ and]was unable to do his previous job as Driver and even[unable][ walk]forsmalldistances. Astheaccidentcausedlossof income.employmentasDriver,theapplicationwasfiledseekingcompensation of Rs.2,00,000/.

4. It was pleaded that as the vehicle was insured in the[name]of O.P.No.2, he was shown as a proper and necessary party tothe claim application. O.P.No.1/ employer and O.P.No.2/PolicyHolder remained ex-parte.

5. O.P.No.3/Insurance Company filed its counter disputing[the]employment wages, the manner of the accident and the[nature][ of]injuries alongwithdisability.It wasfurther pleadedthattheemployment wages, the manner of the accident and the[nature][ of]injuries alongwithdisability.It wasfurther pleadedthatthe work without any disability andclaimant was attending normalpaid by O.P.No.2 to cover thepleaded that no extra premium was risk of the claimant among other objections.

6. the Commissioner framedOn the basis of the pleadings the following issues; 1Whether the injuredIsafnrovisions of the workmen’s Compensation Acf 19with the accident arising out of and ,n thecourse of his employment?

of the injured at the time of the2. What is'the ageaccident?

3. What were the wagespaid to the injured at the time ofthe accident?

4. What is thequantum of compensation payable to theinjured?

the compensationtothe5.Whoareliableto payApplicant?

theclaimanthimself was7.Inthecourseof evidencemarked Exs.A.1 to A.6 to support hisexamined as A.W.1 and.172 of 2007 of Gooty P.S., C.Q.claim i.e. C.C. of F.I.R. in Cr.Nosheet, Office copy of legdlof Wound certificate, C.C. of ChargePhysical disability certificate issued bynotice dated 20.'06.2008RIMS Hospital, Kadapa andDrivirjigDistrictMedicalBoardO.P.No.3/appellant, B.Narayana Assistantlicence.On behalf ofR.W.1 and Exs.B.1 and B.2 w^reManager was examined as

7. markedi.e. Original copy of Policy and R.C. of the lorry bearingNO.AP27 V 7099.

8. TheCommissionertakingintoconsiderationthedocumentary evidence held that the accident occurred[due]torash and negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle[and][ that]claimant suffered grievous injuriesin the said accident.It wasfurther held that the accident was on account of employment[with]O.P.No. 1. The minimum wage of claimant was fixed by taking hisageas35years @Rs.5,439/-asper G.O.Ms.No.90 dated28.09.2007 and awarded compensation of Rs.2,12,825/- makingthe O.P.Nos.1and3 jointly andseverallyliableto paytheamount.Hence, the present appeal.

9. Learnedcounselfor theAppellant contendedthattheaccident cannot be framed to be one in the course of employmentas the claimant was not driving the vehicle at the[time][ of][ accident.]It was contended that even as per the claimant, the[accident]occurred while he was sitting as pillion rider on the motorcycleand therefore the said act cannot be termed to be an accident inthe course of employment.The further contention was[that][ the]claimant was working under O.P.No.1 while the policy[stands]inaccident cannot be framed to be one in the course of employmentas the claimant was not driving the vehicle at the[time][ of][ accident.]It was contended that even as per the claimant, the[accident]occurred while he was sitting as pillion rider on the motorcycleand therefore the said act cannot be termed to be an accident inthe course of employment.The further contention was[that][ the]claimant was working under O.P.No.1 while the policy[stands]in f %

the name of O.P.No.2 and in the absence of any relationshipbetweenO.P.No.1andO.P.No.2,nojuralrelationshipofemployer and employee could be established and the[Insurance]company is not liable for the compensation.

10. Learned counsel for the Respondents contended that[the]accidentoccurredwhiletheclaimantwasreturningfromAnanthapuram after getting the spare parts for the[lorry][ and][ as]the work is in relation to the lorry,it can be termedto beanaccident happened in the course of employment. As regards[the]second contention that though the employee is workingunderO.P.No.1, as there is an internal arrangement between[O.P.Nos.1]and 2, the insurance company cannot be exonerated itself[on][ this]ground.

11. Having heard the respective counsel, this Court is[of][ the]opinion that as the claimant went to Ananthapuram to[get the]spareparts of the vehicle, which was stuck at Gooty and[as][ the]accident occurred while returning with spare parts,[the][ same][ may]be treated as in the course of employment since the[purpose][ of]the visit of the claimant to Ananthapuram was with[reference][ to]spare parts of the vehicle itself.opinion that as the claimant went to Ananthapuram to[get the]spareparts of the vehicle, which was stuck at Gooty and[as][ the]accident occurred while returning with spare parts,[the][ same][ may]be treated as in the course of employment since the[purpose][ of]the visit of the claimant to Ananthapuram was with[reference][ to]spare parts of the vehicle itself.

12. Asregardsthe secondcontention,this Courtisof[the]opinion that as the accident occurred in the course of employmentand with reference to the vehicle of O.P.No.2, theInsurancecompany cannot exonerate itself of its liability.opinion that as the accident occurred in the course of employmentand with reference to the vehicle of O.P.No.2, theInsurancecompany cannot exonerate itself of its liability.

13. Therefore, this Court does not find any substantial questionof law tointerfere with the order of the Commissioner and theappeal is dismissed without costs.of law tointerfere with the order of the Commissioner and theappeal is dismissed without costs.

14. As there is long delay of 18 years from the date of[accident]and considering the uncertain addresses of claimants,[the][ State]LegalServicesAuthorityshall coordinate with theconcerneddepartments and ensure that the compensationis paidto theclaimants directly into their Aadhar linked Bank Account.Registryis directed to mark a copy of this order to the State Legal ServicesAuthority.and considering the uncertain addresses of claimants,[the][ State]LegalServicesAuthorityshall coordinate with theconcerneddepartments and ensure that the compensationis paidto theclaimants directly into their Aadhar linked Bank Account.Registryis directed to mark a copy of this order to the State Legal ServicesAuthority.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall[stand]dismissed.

SD/- E. KAMESWARA RAOJOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

OFFICER

To,

1The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Asst ' Commissioner of iabour, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. (With ercord^2. The Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority, H^No.2-273/5A BSR Complex Opp; to Traffic Police Station, Near[A.P][ Secretariat,]Malkapuram Village, Thulluru Mandal, Guntur District-522238.A BSR Complex Opp; to Traffic Police Station, Near[A.P][ Secretariat,]Malkapuram Village, Thulluru Mandal, Guntur District-522238.

3. One CC to Sri. Sravan Kumar Mannava, Advocate [OPUC]

4One CC to Sri. P Rajani Reddy Advocate [OPUC]

5 One CC to Sri J U M V Prasad, Advocate [OPUC], 6The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra[Pradesh][ at]Amaravathi.Amaravathi.

HIGH COURT

DATED:17/02/2025

ORDER

CMA.No.1426 of 2011

Co§2 2 JUL 2025✓•it-#'^^sCmTentSectiojvx^ky'

DISMISSING THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS