AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Challenging the order dated 21.04.2005 passed in W.C. No.72 of 2004 by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-III, Hyderabad, seeking to set aside the order, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the United India Insurance Company Ltd., Secunderabad/2nd opposite party.
The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that applicants are the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased workman late D. Sathaiah, who died in an accident that occurred on 03.11.2003. The deceased was working as a labourer with the owner/1st opposite party on the vehicle i.e. Tractor-Trailer bearing No.AP-22D-3633 & AP-22D-3634 and he was paying Rs.3,000/- per month. The deceased along with other labourers went to Atchampet Electrical Substation for loading cement electric poles into the trailer and while returning to Ankironipally village, they met with an accident and the deceased died on the spot. The accident occurred during the course of employment. The respondents/applicants filed an application for grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. After adducing evidence and marking exhibits, the learned Assistant Commissioner granted an amount of Rs.1,92,224/- towards compensation. Aggrieved by the said order, the United India Insurance Company Ltd., Secunderabad/2nd opposite party preferred this Appeal.
Heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellant/2nd opposite party and learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants.
Learned counsel for the appellant/2nd opposite party mainly contended that there is no employer and employee relationship between the parties and further stated that as per the evidence of RW.1 and contents of Ex.A1 and Ex.B1, the deceased along with villagers of Ankironipally travelled as passengers in the Tractor along with electric poles, but the Assistant Commissioner erred in fixing the liability against them.
Learned counsel appearing for respondents/applicants contended that as the Assistant Commissioner has rightly passed the order, it needs no interference by this Court.
A perusal of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour shows that deceased D. Sathaiah was working as a labourer with the owner of the vehicle i.e. first respondent and he was paying Rs.3,000/- per month. He contended that the deceased along with other labourers went to Atchampet Electrical Substation for loading cement electric poles into Trailer, while returning they met with an accident and deceased died on the spot. The accident occurred during the course of employment and the owner of the vehicle was having insurance policy and thus, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation.
The relationship of employer and employee was disputed by the Insurance Company in their counter and it was suggested to AW.1 that he has not filed any document to prove his employment with the respondent/1st opposite party and was travelling as a labourer on the Tractor. It was also suggested that he was an unauthorised passenger on goods vehicle and thus, they are not liable to pay compensation. RW.1-Assistant Divisional Manager stated that as per FIR i.e. Ex.A1, the deceased was not under the employment of the respondent/1st opposite party and it was given by one of the co-passengers. As per the said complaint, the villagers of Ankironepally went to Atchampet to collect poles for electrical installations and other related material from Electrical Substation and loaded the electrical poles, and while returning, the Tractor turned turtle and they met with accident. Even as per the policy, no premium was paid for the labourers and thus, they are not liable to pay compensation.
The Assistant Commissioner held that the complaint was given by K. Niranjan, an agriculturist of Ankironepally village, and based on the said complaint, FIR No. 73 of 2003 was registered. The driver of the said vehicle was shown as accused, and the name of the deceased was shown as LW.5. In the remand case diary part-I, the police recorded that LW.4, LW.5, LW.6 and LW.11, who were engaged as labourers on the Tractor of the first respondent. The Assistant Commissioner held that Tractor and Trailer were insured and the present claim is arising out of Workmen’s Compensation Act and, therefore, held the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.
Both issues regarding employment of the deceased D. Sathaiah and non-payment of the additional premium for the labourers, were raised by the Insurance Company before the Assistant Commissioner, but they were not considered. The claim of the Insurance Company is that, the labourers are unauthorised passengers travelling on the Tractor and Trailer at the time of accident, but it was not considered by the Assistant Commissioner and he granted the compensation.
Considering the reasons assigned by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, this Court finds that the impugned order needs no interference by this Court.
The Assistant Commissioner directed both 1st and 2nd opposite parties to deposit the amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which, the applicant is entitled for interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application i.e. 23.5.2004.
As per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of SABERABIBI YAKUBBHAI SHAIKH V/s NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY 2014 (2) SCC 298, the applicants are entitled for interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till date of realisation. AS the appellant/Insurance Company has already deposited the amount, the respondents/applicants herein are entitled for interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till the date of such deposit. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the interest amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on such deposit, the respondents/applicants are permitted to withdraw the same.
Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.