Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 384 (AP)

New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Arlabu Ramana

2025-03-03

NYAPATHY VIJAY

body2025
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. 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. 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? 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. 11. 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. 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 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. 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. , (2017) 14 SCC 663 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 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. 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 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. 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.