The Divisional Manager, N.I.A.Co Ltd, Hy v. Smt.R.Rajamani, And 4 ORS

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1276 OF 2008 JUDGMENT:

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, (for short, 'the Act') by the Opposite Party No.2-Insurer, challenging the award of Rs.68,212/- for the death of the husband of applicant No.1, namely, R. Narsimha. The said order was passed on 5.3.1999 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Assistant Commissioner for Labour, Rangareddy District, Circle-I, at Hyderabad.

2.

Heard Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company.

3.

The main ground urged by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, Sri Kota Subba Rao, has been that Opposite Party No.1 filed counter denying the employment of the deceasedR. Narsimha as a labourer and even he asserted his statement that he never employed the said Narsimha and even the policy does not cover the risk to pay compensation as the deceased was an unauthorized passenger in the goods vehicle and the learned Commissioner failed to notice that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and respondent No.5-Opposite Party No.1 and sought to set aside the order under challenge.

4.

No representation on behalf of the respondentsapplicants. 5.

Perused the order under challenge.

6.

Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, no doubt, pointed out the last paragraph which was occurring at Page No.3 of the order and continued in page No.4. It shows that G. Malla Reddy (Opposite Party No.1) was examined as Court witness, who stated that he belongs to Keesara Village and he purchased Tractor and Trailer by obtaining Bank loan and the Tractor No.AIH 2178 and Trailer No.AIH 2179 were insured with the 2nd respondent-Insurer and he was using the vehicle for his agricultural purposes and for hire for others also and he never engaged the deceased as labourer on the said Tractor and Trailer on any day, more particularly, on 11.3.1992, and the said Narsimha (deceased) belongs to Bogaram village, Keesara Mandal and the deceased - Narsimha took his Tractor and Trailer on 11.3.

1992 with the knowledge of his own brother-in-law to bring the deceased's grass from Bogaram village and the deceased even did not obtain any permission and due to fire accident on that day grass was burnt and his Tractor and Trailer was also damaged a little. When he was cross-examined, he admits that he employed Pentaiah as driver on his Tractor and Trailer and also answers that he did not give any appointment letter to Pentaiah and he did not maintain any record with regard to maintenance of his workers.

said Pentaiah was examined as P.W.3 and he asserts that he was employed on a monthly salary of Rs.1,200/- towards wages for about 11⁄2 years and he was working under Opposite Party No.1 during the year 1992 and Tractor was involved in the accident when he was the driver, police registered a case under Section 337 of I.P.C. and a Crime was registered and in the said accident the deceased received injuries and died and the deceased was also working under Opposite Party No.1 as a labourer and he was accompanying the Tractor as and when directed by the Opposite Party No.1. Thus, the evidence of P.W.3 and the evidence of the Court witness run quite contra to each other. P.W.3 supports the claim of the applicants as regards employment of the deceased Narsimha by the Opposite Party No1 whereas Opposite Party No.1 denies it. Thus, there is only oath against oath without any documentary proof.

7.

In such an event, whether the evidence of P.W.3 can be discarded is the question that arises for consideration? 8.

Opposite Party No.1 in his evidence when examined as Court witness stated that without his knowledge the Tractor was taken by the deceased for bringing grass from Bogaram village. But, it was taken with the knowledge of the Opposite Party No.1's own brotherin-law. In that direction, brother-in-law of the Opposite party No.1 was not examined. His evidence becomes material when the version of Opposite Party No.1 and the evidence of P.W.3 contradicts each other.

9.

The present claim was made way back in the year 1992 and it was disposed of in the year 1999, and the amount granted was Rs.68,212/- as compensation.

10.

Therefore, at this juncture, remitting the matter would not serve any purpose for examining the brother-in-law of Opposite Party No.1. However, the policy issued to Opposite Party No.1 by the Opposite Party No.2 is not in dispute.

11.

Keeping in view, non-examination of brother-in-law of the Opposite Party No.1, it is to be held that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner.

12.

Hence, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the order passed by the Commissioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall stand closed. _________________________ A.SHANKAR NARAYANA,J Dt. 14.06.2018 gbs