The New India Assurance Co Ltd Rep. By Br. Manager, Khammam v. Orusu Rajeswari And 4 Others

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA c.M.A. NO: 23'l OF 2010 Appeal under Section 30 of W.C.Act' against the JudgmenU decree in wc.No.12 0f 2004 daled 2210112006 0n the file of the court of the commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Khammam' Between:

The New lndia Assurance company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Otd club Road' Khammam ...A''ELLANT/ oppostrE pARTy AND

1. Orusu Raieswari, W/o Venkaiah Occ: Housewife 2- orusu Vahrshi Kiishna, S/o Venkaiah aged 4 years, Occ: Student

3. Orusu Ramya Sree, D/o Venkaiah aged 2 years, Occ: Dependant

4. Orusu Lingimma, W/o Swamy Occ: Housewfie

5. Orusu Swamy, S/o Venkaiah Occ: Coolie - AppriLnt NoiZ ana 3 being minors rep. by their Mother and natural guardian Orusu Rajeswari) (nS Oi"A dor LRs'RR '1 to 4 already on record, vide Court Order dated 23l03t1O) {R5 disd. for default vide Court Order dated 6/8/09) iR5 restored vide Court Order dated 2310312010 in CIVIA MP 578/10) Al are Ryo. Vinoba Nagar, Juturpad r"nor,l.HfffilfloPi,illSl or".,.o*r, CMAMP. NO: 1657 OF 2006 Petition filed under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including execution of the order dated 22.1 .2006 in wc No.1212003 0n the file of the commissioner for workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Khammam' For the Appellant : SRI P.BHANU PRAKASH, Advocate For the Respondent Nos.'l to 3 : SRI CH.JANARDHAN REDDY' Advocate

v The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

i

/ /, THE HON'BLE JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA I "') NO ORDER:

Challenging the order dt.22.Ol.2OO6 passed in W.C. No.12 of 2OO4 by the Commissioner for Workmen,s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Khammam, seeking to set aside the order, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the New India Assurance Company Ltd., Khammam/opposite party.

2.

The facts of the case in a nutshell are that, as per the instructions of respondent/applicant No.l, on 25.05.2001, the jeep was engaged by a marriage party and were proceeding towards Tiruvr:r from Kallur to get chicken and by the time they crossed Muggu Venkatapuram village, an unknown vehicle stopped on the middle of the road without having any parking lights and other precautions and the deceased unabre to control the speed, dashed the lorry from its behind. Thereby, the jeep turned turtle and the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries all over the body and immediately, he was shifted to a private Hospital . at Kallur and then the deceased was admitted in Government Hospital, penubally,

PSS,J CMA No.231 of 2O 1O where he succumbed to injuries on the same day. The respondents/applicants filed an application for grant of compensation of Rs.3,OO,OOO/-. After adducing evidence and marking exhibits, the learned Assistant Commissioner granted an amount oi Rs.2,56,498/- towards compensation. Aggrieved by the said order, the New India Assurance Company Ltd., Khammam / opposite party preferred this Appeal. 3.

Heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellant/opposite part5r and learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ applicants.

4.

Learned counsel 'for the appellant/opposite party contended that the deceased Venkaiah is the husband of respondent/applicant No.1. On 25.05.20O1 at about O5:OO a.m., deceased Venkaiah, who was on duty as a driver of jeep bearing Registration No. AP-7T-4373 belonging to Orsu Rajeswari i.e. respondent/applicant No. 1, met with an accident while he was on duty and died.

They mainly contended that there is no employer and employee relationship between the deceased and the respondent/applicant No.l, and that the deceased has not died during the course of employment. They further stated that the deceased driver was driving his ou,n jeep and was involved in the accident. In fact,

/ PSS,J CMA No.23l of 20tO the jeep is in the name of his wife respondent/applicant No.l, al such, he cannot be considered as independent person AS employed by the owner.

5.

l,earned counsel appearing for respondents/applicants contended that as the Assistant Commissioner has rightly passed the order, it needs no interference by this Court. 6.

A perusal of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour shows thai jeep bearing No. Ap-7T4373 belongs to one Orsu Rajeshwari/first applicant. While her husband driving the jeep on 25.05.2O01, he met with an accident and died. Insurance Company specifically denied the relationship of employer and employee and also contended that they are not liable to pay compensation. The applicants have not liled any other documents except Ex.Al to ,{4. But, the Assistant Commissioner framed an issue regarding the fact, whether the driver of the jeep was engaged by the first applicant as on the date of accident. But, considering the said documents and the evidence of pW. I , the Assistant Commissioner wrongly arrived to the conclusion that there was employer and employee relationship between pW. I and deceased.

PSS,J CMA No.23l of2OlO 7.

The learned counsel for the respondents/ applicants contended that the jeep was engaged by the marriage party and while proceedings towards Tiruvur, dashed an unknown vehicle stopped on the middle of the road without having parking i lights, the jeep turned turtle ald thus, the driver sustained injuries and died. But, there is no evidence on record to show that jeep was hired by the marriage party and the driver of the vehicle was employed by the respondent/first applicant and thus, the petitioners failed to prove the employer and employee relationship and it cannot be said that he died during the course of employment and the accident arose out of the employment. As the petitioners failed to prove above aspects, they are not entitled for any compensation. But, the Assistant Commissioner erred in appreciating the facts properly and granted compensation and it is liable to be set aside. B.

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner in W.C. No.12 of 2OO4 dated 22.01.2006. There shall be no order as to costs. Insurance Company is at liberty to withdraw the amount already deposited by them.

\u.- PSS,J CMA No.23 I of 20I0 9.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

Sd/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REG TRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI FFICER To

1. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Khammam. (with records)

2. One CC to Sri P.Bhanu Prakash, Advocate (OPUC)

3. One CC to Sri Ch.Janardhan Reddy, Advocate (OPUC)

4. Two CD Copies

5. One Spare Copy Kj +- \

HIGH COURT i i DATED:1710312O22 i i sTarq C) \..i\.

jl..':

1\a 16 lur ?tt' j f,c I n---,

ORDER

CMA.No.231 ot 2O10 ALLOWING THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS.