Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1074 (AP)

Vankayalapati Bharathi v. Shaik Yasin

2004-09-24

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2004
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS C. M. A. , is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen s Compensation Act (for short "the Act"), against the order, dt. 25-2-1999, in W. C. No. 84 of 1995 on the file of the commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-II, guntur (hereinafter referred to as "the commissioner" ). ( 2 ) THE appellants submitted a claim before the Commissioner alleging that late srinivasa Rao, the husband of the 1st appellant and father of appellants 2 and 3, was employed as a driver with the 1st respondent to work on a jeep bearing No. AP 7u/271. According to them, he left the house on 25-5-1993, at 5. 30 p. m. , and did not return even after six days. It is stated that in the local newspapers the photo of an unidentified dead body found in the limits of dornala Police Station was published and on noticing that it was that of Srinivas Rao, they went to the place and it emerged that he was killed few days back. They claimed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- by pleading that he was being paid the salary of rs. 600/- per month by the 1 st respondent. ( 3 ) THE 1st respondent did not oppose the claim. the 2nd respondent alone disputed the claim of the appellants. Through the order under appeal, the Commissioner rejected it. ( 4 ) SRI Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the commissioner rejected the claim ignoring the evidence on record and by drawing some inferences of his own. He contends that it was impossible for the parties to lead any direct evidence to establish the death of the deceased having regard to the circumstances in which, the dead body was found and that the compensation ought to have been awarded, once the owner of the vehicle admitted that the deceased was employed with him. ( 5 ) SRI R. K. Suri, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, submits that the appellants failed to establish even the basic facts to connect the death with any accident, or employment, and in that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the order under appeal. ( 6 ) THE 1st appellant examined herself as aw. ( 5 ) SRI R. K. Suri, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, submits that the appellants failed to establish even the basic facts to connect the death with any accident, or employment, and in that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the order under appeal. ( 6 ) THE 1st appellant examined herself as aw. 1 She has spoken to the fact that her husband was engaged as a driver with the 1st respondent. She stated that he left the house on 25-5-1993, for duty and did not return thereafter. She has also narrated the circumstances, under which they came to know about the death of the deceased. Since she is not an eyewitness to the incident, much cannot be expected from her. ( 7 ) THE 1st respondent, the owner of the vehicle, was examined as A. W. 2 He stated that his jeep was engaged by some persons for travelling to Markapur and the deceased was the driver on the vehicle. He stated that when the jeep did not return even after three of four days, he started verifying in the locality, and on the information furnished by one of the drivers at Markapur, he has undertaken further searches. He deposed that, in the process, he came to know that a dead body was found in the limits of Dornala police Station. He submitted a complaint with P. S. Pedda Dornala, marked as Ex. A-6, narrating all the facts and requesting them to nab the culprits, who murdered his driver, and to restore his vehicle. A. W. 3 is the concerned Police Officer, who investigated the crime. ( 8 ) IT is true that the Commissioner found some difficulty to record a finding that the dead body, referred to in the First information Report, was that of the person, who was employed as driver and that he died during the course of employment. In fact, these are important aspects to be decided in any claim under the Act. However, the difficulty of the appellants in providing the necessary links cannot be brushed aside. The deceased left his house on 25-5-1993, and did not return thereafter. In such cases, the matter needs to be decided on the basis of circumstantial evidence. In fact, these are important aspects to be decided in any claim under the Act. However, the difficulty of the appellants in providing the necessary links cannot be brushed aside. The deceased left his house on 25-5-1993, and did not return thereafter. In such cases, the matter needs to be decided on the basis of circumstantial evidence. ( 9 ) ONE handicap that the Commissioner felt was that the appellants did not establish that the husband of the first appellant died at all. He has rightly pointed that even the death certificate was not filed. In such an event, there was no other alternative for the commissioner to have, than to reject the claim. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submits that there was difficulty in procuring the death certificate for the reason that the death took place at a place far away from they residence of the appellants and that they are not acquainted with the relevant procedure. He submits that if they are given an opportunity, they would be able to place necessary material before the commissioner to establish that the employee died in the course of employment. ( 11 ) HAVING regard to the fact that the Act is a walfare legislation and that the death occurred under mysterious circumstances, this Court is of the view that the appellants deserve to be given an opportunity to place the necessary material before the commissioner. ( 12 ) HENCE, the order under appeal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the commissioner for fresh disposal. It shall be open to the appellants to place such material, as is available with them and permissible in law, before the commissioner, who in turn shall decide the matter, on merits. ( 13 ) THE C. M. A. , is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.