Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 581 (AP)

V. Anjaiah v. P. Kristappa

2023-03-16

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the impugned order dtd. 12/10/2009 in W.C.No.28 of 2006 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ananthapur. 2. The appellants herein are the claimants and the respondents 1 and 2 herein are the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 before the learned Commissioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as they are arrayed before the learned Commissioner. 3. The applicants, being the children of deceased V. Yerramma, filed the W.C. claiming compensation of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 from Opposite Parties 1 and 2 for the death of deceased V. Yerramma, who was working as employee of Opposite Party No.1. On 18/2/2005 the deceased Yerramma and others were engaged by the Opposite Party No.1 for the work and they boarded a tractor and trailer bearing No.AP-02-U-1321 and AP-02-U-1322 and at about 6.00P.M., they proceeded from Chinnakowkuntla village to PABR dam to transport mud to the fields of Opposite Party No.1 at Peddikowkuntla village. While the tractor proceeded and reached at 4 KMs, the driver drove the vehicle at a high speed rashly and negligently in a zigzag manner, as a result of which, the trailer turned into the ditches and the workers travelling therein were thrown from the tractor, due to which Yeramma and Sreenivasulu died and other coolies sustained injuries. The deceased Yerramma died during the course of her employment and she was earning Rs.3, 000.00 per month from the Opposite Party No.1. She was aged about 50 years at the time of accident. The claimants being the children of deceased Yerramma sought for compensation of Rs.2, 00, 000.00. The Opposite Party No.1 filed his counter admitting the relationship of employer and employee between himself and the deceased Yerramma. He denied the age of the deceased, the liability of payment of compensation and claimed that the compensation is excessive. 4. The Opposite Party No.2 filed its counter denying the relationship of employer and employee, the age, wage and occupation of the deceased. They stated that the claimants are majors and independent earning members and are not dependents of the deceased Yerramma. Since the Opposite Party No.1 violated the terms of the conditions of policy, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation and that the claim made by the claimants is excessive. They stated that the claimants are majors and independent earning members and are not dependents of the deceased Yerramma. Since the Opposite Party No.1 violated the terms of the conditions of policy, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation and that the claim made by the claimants is excessive. Having heard both the counsel and on appreciation of evidence on record, the learned Commissioner dismissed the claim. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the claimants preferred the present appeal, on the ground that though there is ample evidence on record to prove the existence of the employer and employee relationship, the learned Commissioner misconstrued that the applicants failed to prove the relationship and thereby the commissioner did not choose to give any findings on toehr issues. 6. Before proceeding further, it is beneficial to refer Sec. 2 (1) (d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which deals with the definition of "dependent". It reads as under: "dependent" means any of the following relatives of a deceased workman namely: (i) a widow a minor legitimate or adopted son an unmarried legitimate or adopted daughter or a widowed mother; and (ii) if wholly dependant on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death a son or a daughter who has attained the age of 18 years and who is infirm; (iii) if wholly or in part dependant on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death- (a) a widower (b) a parent other than a widowed mother (c) a minor illegitimate son an unmarried illegitimate daughter or a daughter legitimate or illegitimate or adopted if married and a minor or if widowed and minor (d) a minor brother or an unmarried sister or a widowed sister if a minor (e) a widowed daughter-in-law (f) a minor child of a pre-deceased son (g) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter where no parent of the child is alive or (h) a paternal grandparent if no parent of the workman is alive; Explanation: For the purpose of sub-clause (ii) and items (f) and (g) of sub-clause (iii) references to a son daughter or child include an adopted son daughter or child respectively." 7. When the matter came up for hearing, this court observed that the applicants, who filed the claim petition for compensation, are sons of the deceased Yerramma and they are all majors aged about 35, 32 and 33 years respectively. Needless to say that to have a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the applicant should be any of the dependent as defined under Sec. 2 (1) (d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act or he may be an injured. In the present case, the applicants are all major sons. It is not the case of the applicants that though they are all majors, they are mentally retorted or suffering with any disability and wholly dependent on their deceased mother Yerramma. However, it is appropriate to look into the evidence of AW.1, who is son of the deceased. He stated in his evidence that his mother Yerramma was working under the Opposite Party No.1 and was receiving wages of Rs.100.00 per day. He stated that on 18/2/2005, his mother met with an accident when she was proceeding in the tractor/trailor bearing No.AP-02-U-1321 and AP-02-U1322 towards PABR Dam, the tractor fell into ditch and Yeramma and another died and other coolies sustained injuries. In the cross-examination it was elicited that his mother has got three daughters and three sons and they have not impleaded all their sisters in the case and that all the applicants are got married and residing separately and they are independently earning and living separately. If that being the case, the applicants are not at all entitled to file claim petition seeking compensation for the death of their mother under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Nevertheless, being the legal representatives of the deceased, they can file a petition seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, but not under the Workmen's Compensation Act. 8. In order to substantiate the same, it is relevant to refer to Gopal Synthetics v. Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Kota, and others, 1993 SCC Online Raj 73. wherein it is held that major brother of the deceased workman is not dependent in accordance with the definition given under Sec. 2 (1)(d) of the Act, and he is not entitled for compensation. In order to substantiate the same, it is relevant to refer to Gopal Synthetics v. Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Kota, and others, 1993 SCC Online Raj 73. wherein it is held that major brother of the deceased workman is not dependent in accordance with the definition given under Sec. 2 (1)(d) of the Act, and he is not entitled for compensation. The main attack of the appellants herein against the impugned order is that though there is ample evidence on record to prove the existence of the employer and employee relationship between the Opposite Party No.1 and the deceased, the learned Commissioner misconstrued that the applicants have failed to prove the relationship of employer and employee and thereby the Commissioner did not choose to give finding on other issues. 9. In fact, the enquiry before the Commissioner is a summary in nature and he need not even record the evidence word by word and he can just record the substance of the evidence. Such being the case, the Commissioner is wrong demanding the applicants to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt. It is only the standard of proof required in an enquiry before the learned Commissioner on preponderance of probabilities of the case. There is no dispute about the fact that the deceased who is the mother of the applicants was engaged as coolie by Opposite Party No.1. 10. As seen from the impugned award, the learned Commissioner categorically held that the deceased Yerramma was not a workman under the Opposite Party No.1 as a coolie in his tractor/trailer and that the deceased and other coolies were traveling/proceeding in the said tractor/trailor towards PABR Dam to bring the mud to the garden work of one Kuchi Narayanappa, but not as the workers of Opposite Party No.1. The learned Commissioner further held that there is no record to show the relationship of employee and employer between the deceased Yerramma and the Opposite Party No.1, except the oral evidence of the applicants, which is the important factor to award compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The learned Commissioner further observed that compensation payable under the Workmen's Copensation Act has to be determined only as per the principles laid down in the Workmen's Compensation Act, but not on the basis of principles, the rules and other regulations of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Commissioner further observed that compensation payable under the Workmen's Copensation Act has to be determined only as per the principles laid down in the Workmen's Compensation Act, but not on the basis of principles, the rules and other regulations of the Motor Vehicles Act. Generally, the principles in determining the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act are not relevant in awarding compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Though the learned Commissioner lost sight of the important aspect referred to supra, it goes to the root of the matter, as the very claim is not maintainable. 11. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances stated above, this court is of the considered opinion that since the applicants are all majors aged about 35, 32 and 30 years respectively and got married and residing separately with their independent income, they are not at all entitled to claim any compensation. In that view of the matter, the claim made by the appellants is misconceived and not maintainable under law. Therefore, the findings given by the learned Commissioner do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference of this Court, and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed without costs. 13. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.