Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
The New India Assurance Company Ltd., vs Sri Arlabu Ramana 5 Others on 3 March, 2025
APHC010587322012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3460]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 558/2012
Between:
The New India Assurance Company Ltd., ...APPELLANT
AND
Sri Arlabu Ramana & 5 Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. NARESH BYRAPANENI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. JAYANTI S C SEKHAR
The Court made the following:
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.558 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
1. The present C.M.A is filed under Section 30 of Workmen’s
Compensation Act, 1923 questioning the Order dated 03.06.2011 in
W.C.No.29 of 2008 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s
Compensation & Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Narsipatnam,
Visakhapatnam District.
2. The O.P.No.2-Insurance Company is the Appellant herein.
3. The facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as follows:-
The Claimants are parents and siblings of one Arlabu
Maheswari (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’). The deceased
used to attend labour work and assisting her family. On 20.10.2006,
the deceased was engaged as a labourer by O.P.No.1 along with
other labourers for the purpose of loading and unloading on the
Tractor & Trailer bearing Nos.AP-30-T-4106 & AP-30-B-7203. While
so, when the deceased and other labourers were being taken in the
tractor and trailer on the said date, the vehicle met with an accident
near Dabbadabalanna Garuvu, opposite Pothurajugudi Kujjali of
Paderu Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and turned turtle due to
negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, as a result, the
deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot. A criminal case
was registered by the S.H.O. Paderu P.S., vide Cr.No.75 of 2006
under Sections 304-A, 338, 337 IPC against the driver of the vehicle.
3
4. As the accident occurred in the course of employment while
the deceased was working under O.P.No.1 upon his instructions and
as the Tractor & Trailer were insured with O.P.No.2-Insurance
Company vide Policy No.621200/31/05/04711, the claim application
was filed by the parents and the siblings of the deceased seeking
compensation of Rs.5,09,355/-.
5. O.P.No.1 remained absent and was set ex parte.
6. O.P.No.2-Insurance Company filed its counter disputing the
claim regarding jural relationship of employer and employee between
the deceased and O.P.No.1/owner, wages and the accident
occurred while the deceased was travelling in the trailer bearing No.
AP-30-V-7203 by sitting on the load of stones in violation of terms
and conditions of the policy. It was also pleaded that the deceased
was a gratuitous passenger on the tractor and trailer and therefore
the Claimants are not entitled for compensation.
7. An additional counter was also filed by O.P.No.2-Insurance
Company disputing that the driver of the tractor and trailer holds
LMV non-transport vehicle license and the driver must possess an
endorsement of tractor and trailer by the authorities.
8. On the basis of the pleadings, the Commissioner framed the
following issues for consideration:-
1) Whether the deceased is a workman under the provisions
of W.C. Act and there exists employee-employer relation and
death arose out of and in the course of employment?
2) What is the age and wage of the deceased at the time of
the accident?
4
3) Whether the applicant is entitled for any amount of
compensation? If so what amount of compensation the
applicants are entitled and who are liable to pay
compensation?
9. In the course of enquiry, the Claimant No.1 i.e. the father of
the deceased was examined as A.W.1. In his chief examination,
A.W.1 deposed that on a fateful day i.e. on 20.10.2006 in the
morning hours, his deceased daughter was engaged as labourer by
O.P.No.1/owner in the tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP-30-T-4106
& AP-30-B-7203 for loading and unloading and on that day at about
1.00 p.m, when the vehicle reached near Dabbadabalanna Garuvu,
opposite to Pothuraju Gudi, Kujjali of Paderu Mandal, the vehicle
turned turtle, fell into the slope out of the negligent driving of the
driver, due to which, his deceased daughter fell down and sustained
injuries and as a result she died on the spot. It was also deposed
that a criminal case in Cr.No.75 of 2006 was registered and Charge
Sheet was also filed to that effect and he reiterated other claim
averments.
10. One Vanthala Padma Kumari who was said to be the
co-worker of the deceased and eye witness, was examined as
A.W.2. In her deposition, A.W.2 deposed that one Gullela Devi, the
deceased and Vanthala Padma Rao were engaged as labourers by
O.P.No.1 on the tractor and trailer on 20.10.2006 for loading and
unloading stones. A.W.2 deposed that the accident occurred when
the vehicle reached near Pothuraju temple of Kujjulu Village at about
2.00 p.m. due to negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and
trailer. A.W.2 deposed that she is an eye witness to the accident and
she had given a statement to the police also.
5
11. On behalf of O.P.No.2-Insurance Company, one Kota Venkata
Rao, who is the employee of O.P.No.2-Insurance Company was
examined as RW1. R.W.1 in his chief examination affidavit deposed
that the O.P.No.1 is not the owner of the vehicle as on the date of
the accident and in the absence of any contract of insurance
between O.P.Nos.2 & 3, the O.P.No.2-Insurance Company is not
liable to pay any compensation. The driving license of the deceased
was also disputed on the ground that there is no endorsement of the
authorities to drive the tractor and trailer. Through R.W.1, Exs.B.1 to
B.6 i.e. Policy, Investigation Report, Extract of Form-B Register for
Trailer, Extract of Form-B Register for Tractor, Attested true copy of
Charge sheet respectively were marked.
12. One Kotiyda Narayana Rao, working as Senior Assistant in
R.T.O. Office, Anakapalli was examined as R.W.2 at the instance of
O.P.No.2-Insurance Company and through him Exs.X.1 to X.4 i.e.
Authorization Letter issued by R.T.O, Ex.X.2 Copy of Extract of
Driving License, Copy of Extract of ‘B’ Register for Tractor and
Extract ‘B’ Register of Trailer respectively were marked.
13. In short, the evidence of R.W.2 is that the vehicle was
transferred from O.P.No.1 to O.P.No.3 on 7.8.2006 and that the
driver of the vehicle was having driving license of LMV non-transport
only.
14. Taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence,
the Commissioner passed a detailed order upholding the jural
relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and
O.P.No.1/owner on the date of accident and that the accident
occurred in the course of employment, which is covered by policy
6
issued by O.P.No.2-Insurance Company and awarded compensation
of Rs.3,05,613/-. Hence, the present C.M.A is filed.
15. Heard Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the
Appellant-Insurance Company and M/s. Jayanthi SC Sekhar,
learned counsel for the Respondents.
16. The counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company contended
that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving license to
drive the vehicle-in-question and as he was having driving license
only LMV non-transport. It was also contended that the vehicle stood
transferred in favour of O.P.No.3 as on the date of the accident and
therefore there was no liability for the O.P.No.2-Insurance Company
as there was no contract to indemnify O.P.No.3 as the policy is given
only to indemnify O.P.No.1/owner. It was also contended that there
is a violation of terms of the policy since the deceased was
admittedly going on a tractor on the heap of stones, which is not
indemnified under the policy. Hence, the counsel for the Appellant
sought for exoneration of the liability against O.P.No.2-Insurance
Company.
17. The counsel for the Respondents contended that in view of the
Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewagan vs.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,1 it was contended that there is
no distinction between the driving license of non-transport light motor
vehicles and the driving license of tractor and trailer and the
contention of the counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company
cannot be sustained. As regards the second contention regarding
the transfer of vehicle in favour of O.P.No.3 as on the date of the
1
(2017) 14 SCC 663
7
accident, it was contended that the transfer would not enure to the
benefit of the Insurance Company, as the policy is in favour of an
accident caused to the vehicle and since the O.P.No.1 had engaged
the deceased on the date of accident and as the policy of insurance
indemnifies O.P.No.1/owner, the Appellant-Insurance Company
cannot be exonerated merely because the vehicle was transferred in
favour of O.P.No.3. As regards the third contention that the
deceased was travelling in the vehicle in violation of the terms and
conditions of the policy. It was contended that the insurance policy
for the trailer speaks of coverage of liability of six (6) employees
under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and a premium of
Rs.150/- was paid therein. Therefore, it is not open to the Appellant-
Insurance Company to contend that there is a violation of terms and
conditions of the policy.
18. Having heard the respective contentions, this Court opines as
under:-
The first aspect regarding the driving license of the deceased.
Admittedly, the driver of the vehicle was having L.M.V non-transport
and in view of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukund
Dewagan‘s case (referred supra), the same is held sufficient to drive
transport vehicle also and no separate endorsement is required from
the licencing authority. Therefore, it is not open to the Appellant-
Insurance Company to disown its liability on the ground of lack of
transport vehicle driving license.
19. The second aspect of the case is regarding transfer of the
vehicle in question. This Court is of the opinion that the transfer of
vehicle from O.P.No.1 to O.P.No.3 as on the date of accident would
8
not be of any relevance. It is not the case of the insurance company
that the vehicle was being used by O.P.No.1 without any authority
and from the facts, it can be presumed that the usage of the vehicle
by O.P.No.1 was only with the consent and for benefit of O.P.No.3.
Though, the business arrangement regarding usage of vehicle
between O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.3 is not forthcoming, notwithstanding
the same, the O.P.No.3 would also be vicariously liable to pay
compensation under section 12 of the Act, since he is to be
considered as principal beneficiary. As the insurance policy stood
transferred in favour of O.P.No.3 by virtue of section 157 of the
Motor vehicles Act, 1988, the Insurance Company cannot disown the
liability.
20. As regards the third ground that the deceased was travelling
on the vehicle in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy,
this Court is of the opinion that the deceased being a loading and
unloading worker has no choice but to travel on the trailer
considering that the vehicle is being taken to remote areas for
fetching the stones and lack of alternative modes of transport. In the
present case, the accident occurred in the scheduled agency area
and it is a matter of common knowledge that there is poor
infrastructure and connectivity in those areas and the contention of
the Appellant-Insurance Company that the labourers should not
travel on the tractor and trailer is contrary to the reality of those
areas. Apart from that, the insurance company accepted a premium
paid towards liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923
for six (6) employees and if the loading and unloading workers are
not supposed to travel in the trailer, the Insurance Company should
not have accepted the premium at the first instance.
9
21. Therefore this Court does not find any merit in the appeal.
Consequently, the C.M.A stands dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
22. As the accident pertains to the year 2006 and as 19 years
have lapsed and considering the uncertain addresses of the
Claimants, the State Legal Services Authority is directed to
coordinate with the concerned Departments and intimate the
outcome of the appeal and ensure that the compensation with
accrued interest is deposited in the Aadhar linked bank account of
the Claimants.
23. The Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the
State Legal Services Authority to take necessary action.
As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: 03.03.2025
IS
10
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.558 of 2012
Date: 03.03.2025
IS
[ad_1]
Source link