Telangana High Court
The National Insurance Company Ltd vs Rizwana Parveen And 2 Others on 10 July, 2025
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.762 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated 24.02.2014 passed in W.C.No.19 of 2010 on the file of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I (F.A.C) : T.Anjaiah Karmika Sankshema Bhavanam : RTC Cross Roads, Hyderabad (for short 'the Commissioner').
2. Heard Mr. V.Sambasiva Rao, learned Standing Counsel for appellant-Insurance Company, none appears for respondents.
3. One Mohd. Nooruddin Hassan (deceased) was an Assistant of Mohd. Esakuddin. Mohd. Esakuddin is a Mechanic of road roller and resident of Hyderabad. On receiving a phone call from Opposite Party No.1 (owner), on 15.12.2009 to repair a road roller, deceased (Assistant) and the mechanic went to repair the road roller to Kurnool. On 16.12.2009, when both were attending to the repair work of road roller, engine of road roller fell on the Assistant (deceased) and he died. Incident occurred 2 on 16.12.2009, at about 14:00 hours. Insurance Policy and death of the person. Insurance Policy bearing No.150100/31/09/6700013492 was valid from 02.09.2009 to 01.09.2010, covering the risk of one employee under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 as on the date of accident. Ex.A6 is the Insurance Policy, amount of Rs.25/-, premium was collected towards risk of one employee. These facts are not in dispute. Applicants claimed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation with interest @18% per annum. Commissioner considered evidence of AW1 (for applicants) and RW1 (for Insurance Company) and exhibits marked i.e., Exs.A1 to A6 (for applicants), awarded compensation of Rs.4,42,280/- with interest @12% per annum from Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay from 17.01.2010 till date of realization. Order of Commissioner is dated 24.02.2014 in W.C.No.19 of 2010, this order is under challenge in present CMA.
4. Learned counsel for Insurance Company submitted that Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation, that 3 the deceased cannot be termed as an employee, the premium was paid only for the driver. It is further submitted that the vehicle (road roller) involved in the accident had a driver and insurance is paid for the driver. It is also submitted that contractor engaged the road roller for contract works, it was halted, as there was an engine problem, contractor called the mechanic and that during the engine repair work, deceased died, hence, Insurance Company is not liable.
5. It is submitted that there is no employer-employee relationship between owner of the road roller and the deceased and Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as the premium collected was for driver.
6. Heard learned counsel for Insurance Company, perused the record and considered the submission.
7. On 16.12.2009, deceased along with one Mohd. Esakuddin was repairing the engine of road roller on a call by the contractor/owner of road roller. The engine of road roller fell on the deceased and he died. Road roller was insured by 4 Opposite Party No.1 (Owner/Contractor) with Opposite Party No.2 (Insurance Company), policy was valid from 02.09.2009 to 01.09.2010 (Ex.A6). Policy was covering the risk of one employee, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Premium of Rs.25/- was collected towards the coverage of risk of one employee. It is not mentioned that premium collected was for driver and not for any other. Claim is under Workmen's Compensation Act, premium collected to cover the risk of one employee, does not exclude the mechanic. The word one employee can be inferred to be a driver, cleaner or any other employee. There is nothing under law that the word employee excludes mechanic. Applicant cannot be denied compensation on the ground of payment of premium alone as contended by the counsel for Insurance Company. As per Section 147(1)(c) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is a statutory liability to cover the risk of an employee under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the same is upheld in a catena of judgments.
8. Other contention raised is about the age of workman by Opposite Party No.2 (Insurance Company). Age is recorded as 5 23 years in the post mortem report (Ex.A4), no evidence was led contrary to Ex.A4. In the absence of any contrary evidence, the age of workman was taken as 23 years.
9. Applicant claimed, that, the deceased earned a wage of Rs.500/- per day, which was disputed. Applicant did not come up with any evidence in support of wages. The Commissioner relied on G.O.Ms.No.83, dated 22.11.2006 and arrived at the basic wage for Mechanic @ Rs.4722/-, VDA payable as Rs.1075.20 paise and the total wage @ Rs.5797.20 paise per month.
10. The deceased was under the employment of a mechanic as an assistant and he met with the accident while repairing the road roller. But for the employment under the mechanic on daily wage payment, the deceased would not have attended the repair work. From the facts, it is construed that the deceased was under the employment of the owner of the road roller resulting in his death arising out of employment. These facts are suffice to infer that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment.
6
11. RW.1 in his cross examination deposed that the premium collected (Rs.25/-) is towards coverage of driver as a road roller. He further deposed that there was no employer - employee relationship. As stated supra, the premium was collected for one employee under the Workmens' Compensation Act, 1923. It can be concluded that the deceased was under the employment of the owner (opposite party No.1) when the accident took place.
12. Perused the record, considered the entire factual matrix of the case, as narrated supra, on considering the findings of Commissioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that findings of the Commissioner cannot be interfered with.
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Golla Rajanna and Others v. Divisional Manager and Another 1, held as follows:
"10. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the 1 (2017) 1 SCC 45 7 competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act."
14. The said principle enunciated in Golla Rajanna's case (1 supra) has been reiterated in judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav and another v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another 2 . In the facts and circumstances of the case, no question of law, much less a substantial one, arises for consideration.
15. For the reasons aforesaid, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is devoid of merits, same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J Date: 10.07.2025 plp 2 2023 SCC Online SC 1105