Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S. Iffcotokio General Insurance Co. ... vs Addanki Devadanam, Prakasam District 3 ... on 17 February, 2025
1
APHC010717962011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3460]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 363/2011
Between:
M/s. Iffco-tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. New ...APPELLANT
Delhi
AND
Addanki Devadanam, Prakasam District & 3 ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. K S N MURTHY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. VENKATESWARLU SANISETTY
The Court made the following:
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.363 of 2011
JUDGMENT:
1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 questioning the Order dated 31.05.2010 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kandukur, Prasham District.
2. O.P.No.3-Insurance Company is the Appellant herein.
3. The facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as follows:-
The parents of one Addanki Mariyadas (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") are the Claimants. The deceased was working under O.P.No.1/Respondent No.2 i.e. employer as a daily wage worker and was being paid Rs.80/- per day. O.P.No.1/Respondent No.2 i.e. employer used to undertake contract work of O.P.No.2/Respondent No.3. O.P.No.2 had insured the risk of all the workers under the policy issued by O.P.No.3/Insurance Company.
4. On 10.03.2006, as per the instructions of O.P.No.1 i.e. employer, the deceased along with co-workers went to Jangamguntla Village to install internet connections. In the process of work, while the deceased was fixing the internet wire to the electric pole, he received electric shock and fell down from the pole and received multiple injuries. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Government General Hospital, Cumbum and as per the advice of the doctors shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur. The deceased died while undergoing treatment at 3 Government General Hospital, Guntur. A criminal case was registered by Cumbum Police Station on 10.03.2006 in Cr.No.22 of 2006. Hence, the parents of the deceased filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
5. O.P.No.1 i.e. employer had engaged a counsel by name Sri S. Brahmaiah and did not file any Counter.
6. Similarly, O.P.No.2 also remained ex parte.
7. O.P.No.3-Insurance Company filed its counter disputing the claim on the ground that the O.P.No.1 i.e. employer had taken contract of O.P.No.2 and also was intended to cover the employees of O.P.No.2 alone and therefore the O.P.No.3-Insurance Company cannot be made liable for compensation.
8. On the basis of the pleadings, the Commissioner framed the following issues for consideration:-
1) Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of the Act and he died due to personal injuries he received in an accident arising out of and in the course of employment?
2) What was the age and wages of the deceased at the time of death?
3) To what relief the dependants of the deceased are entitled?
4) Who are liable to pay the compensation?
9. On behalf of the Claimants, the Claimant No.1 by name A. Devadanam i.e. the father of the deceased was examined as A.W.1 and one Darla Prasad was examined as A.W.2 and Exs.A.1 to 4 A.4 i.e. Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.22 of 2006, dated 10.03.2006, Attested copy of Inquest Report, Attested copy of Post-mortem Certificate and Xerox copy of Attendance Register respectively were marked.
10. On behalf of O.P.No.1 i.e. employer, one Shaik Munna was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R.1 Labour Attendance Register for March, 2006 and Ex.A.2 Letter addressed to the O.P.No.2 without date respectively were marked.
11. The Commissioner taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence held that the deceased died in the course of employment and that O.P.No.3/Appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. The age of the deceased was taken as '24' as per the Post-mortem Report and a compensation of Rs.2,60,605/- was awarded. Hence, the present appeal is filed.
12. This Court on 05.07.2006 passed the following order:-
"Learned counsel for petitioner(s)/appellant(s) is permitted to take out personal notice to respondent Nos.3 and 4 through registered post with acknowledgment due and file proof of service within four weeks. Failing which, petition/appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court as against respondent Nos.3 & 4."
13. As per the endorsement by the Registry, the above mentioned peremptory order was not complied with by the Appellant-Insurance Company and consequently the appeal stood dismissed against the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 i.e. O.P.Nos.1 & 2.
514. As the appeal against O.P.Nos.1 & 2 stood dismissed for non- compliance of the above quoted peremptory order, the impugned order of the Commissioner making O.P.Nos.1 & 2 "jointly and severally" liable to pay the compensation had attained finality vis-à- vis the employers/O.P.Nos.1 & 2. As the "joint and several liability"
stood crystallised in view of dismissal of the appeal against O.P.Nos.1 & 2, the vicarious liability which was indemnified by the appellant also attained finality. Hence, present appeal cannot be entertained any further as no favourable order can be passed in favour of appellant as that would lead to inconsistent orders.
15. Even on merits, though the deceased was working under O.P.No.1 i.e. employer as he had effectively discharged the work of O.P.No.2 pursuant to the contract between O.P.Nos.1 & 2 and the deceased should be treated as an employee of O.P.No.2 in view of Section 12 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and consequently O.P.No.3-Insurance Company having indemnified the workers of O.P.No.2 is liable to pay compensation.
16. In a similar fact scenario, this Court in C.M.A.No.718 of 2010, dated 07.02.2025 after referring to the Judgment of the Delhi High Court in M/s. Hadiso Construction Pvt. Ltd., & Anr. vs. Commissioner Employees Compensation & Ors.,1 held that the principal employer would be liable to pay compensation.
17. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal and C.M.A is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
12017 SCC OnLine Del 12514 6
18. Since the incident had happened in the year 2006 and considering the time gap of 18 years and the uncertain addresses of the Claimants, the State Legal Services Authority shall coordinate with the concerned Departments and inform the Claimants of the outcome of the appeal and ensure that the compensation is paid to the Claimants directly into their Aadhar linked bank account at the earliest.
19. The Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the State Legal Services Authority for taking necessary action.
As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 17.02.2025 IS 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.363 of 2011 Date: 17.02.2025 IS