Telangana High Court
The Se., Apcpdcl., Nalgonda vs Smt.Lavuri Neela And 4 Ors on 15 December, 2023
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.740 of 2010
JUDGMENT:
1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against order dated 05.05.2010 in W.C.No.76 of 2007 (F) on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour at Nalgonda (hereinafter referred to as 'Commissioner'). The said case was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein seeking compensation for death of one Sri Lavuri Srinu (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') and the same was partly allowed by the Commissioner granting compensation of Rs.1,19,873/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed at the instance of opposite party before the Commissioner.
2. The appellant herein is opposite party and respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein are applicants before the Commissioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Commissioner.
3. The facts of the case of the applicants are that applicant No.1 is wife, applicant Nos.2 and 3 are children and applicant Nos.4 and 5 are parents of the deceased. The present claim 2 MGP,J CMA_740_2010 petition is filed seeking compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- on account of death of the deceased. According to the applicants, the deceased was working as apprentice/trainee under the opposite party. On 09.10.2006, at about 11:00 AM the deceased was attending his duties and as per the directions of Sri Ch. Chary, Junior Lineman of the opposite party, he was repairing the LT line in the fields of Sri M. Venkat Reddy and Sri Saidi Reddy at Bothalapalem village and suddenly, the electricity supply was restored through the said LT line. As a result, the deceased died on the spot due to electrocution. Based on the complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.102 of 2006 on the file of the Police Station Wadapally, Nalgonda District, with regard to the death of the deceased.
4. It is further contended by the applicants that the deceased was aged about 23 years as on the date of the incident. He was being paid an amount of Rs.1,100/- per month towards stipend by opposite party. The deceased died in the incident arising during the course and out of his employment under opposite party. Hence, the present claim petition is filed by the applicants seeking compensation from the opposite party.
3
MGP,J CMA_740_2010
5. The opposite party filed counter denying the averments made by the applicants in the claim petition. The opposite party denied the employment of the deceased with them and contended that the deceased is only apprenticeship trainee under the Apprentices Act, 1961. He was undergoing apprentices training in a designated trade in the establishment and he is not a worker. The opposite party also denied age, wages and liability of the opposite party under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
6. In support of their case, the applicants got examined applicant No.5 as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. Opposite party got examined R.W.1 and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-3, in support of their case.
7. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Commissioner held that the applicants have successfully proved their case. Hence, the claim petition was partly allowed holding that the opposite party is liable to pay compensation and the Commissioner granted an amount of Rs.1,19,873/- towards compensation.
4
MGP,J CMA_740_2010
8. Heard, the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party. Despite service of notice, none appeared and there is no representation on behalf of the respondents.
9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party that the applicants were not entitled for compensation for death of the deceased as he was undergoing apprentices training in a designated trade in the establishment of the opposite party and he is not a worker. Further, as per Section 18 (b) of the Apprentices Act, 1961, the provisions of any law with respect to labour shall not apply to or in relation to such apprentice i.e., the deceased as he is only a trainee. The Commissioner without considering the same has awarded compensation. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party prays to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
10. Now, the point for determination is as follows:
"Whether the applicants are entitled for compensation as granted by the Commissioner?" 5
MGP,J CMA_740_2010 Point:-
11. This Court has perused the entire documents and evidence placed on record by both the parties. P.W.1, who is the mother of the deceased deposed about the manner of the incident reiterating the contents of the claim petition. In the cross-examination, she denied all the suggestions made by the opposite party. She denied that suggestion that all the certificates pertaining to the deceased were not genuine and that he was not working under electricity department. She also denied the suggestion that the deceased never worked under opposite party and that the applicants filed a false case.
12. On behalf of opposite party, R.W.1 was examined reiterating the contents of their counter. R.W.1 admitted that the deceased was apprentices trainee and he was paid an amount of Rs.1,100/- per month towards stipend. He also admitted the incident and death of the deceased due to electrocution. In the cross- examination, he admitted the date of birth of the deceased and also the academic certificates of the deceased. He also admitted that the deceased was working as apprentices under Sri Ch. Chary, Junior Lineman. He also stated that an amount of Rs.50,000/- 6
MGP,J CMA_740_2010 was paid to the applicants towards ex-gratia for the death of the deceased as the incident was non-departmental fatal accident. He also admitted that the deceased died during the course and out of his employment with opposite party.
13. A perusal of the documents filed by the applicants under Ex.A-1 and A-4 i.e., First Information Report and the charge sheet clearly disclose that based on the complaint, a case has been registered and investigation was taken up with regard to the death of the deceased and charge sheet was laid by the police. Ex.A-2 inquest report discloses that the deceased was working as apprentice under opposite party and he died due to electrocution. Ex.A-3 post mortem examination report also supports the death of the deceased due to electrocution. Ex.A-5 appointment letter issued by opposite party to the deceased also shows that the deceased was working as apprentice under the opposite party. All these documents clearly disclose that the deceased was working as apprentice under the opposite party and he died during the course and out of his employment under the opposite party.
14. It is pertinent to state that there is no dispute with regard to occurrence of the incident, while the deceased was attending his 7 MGP,J CMA_740_2010 duties under the opposite party. There is also no dispute that the deceased was working as apprentice trainee under opposite party. There is also no dispute with regard to the stipend paid to the deceased by opposite party. The only dispute raised by the opposite party is that the deceased, who is apprentice trainee, is not a workman and he is not entitled for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. In this regard, it is apt to refer Section 16 of the Apprentice Act, 1961, which reads as follows:
"Section 16:- Employer's liability for compensation for injury:
If personal injury is caused to an apprentice, by accident arising out of and in the course of his training as an apprentice, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation which shall be determined and paid, so far as may be, in accordance with the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, subject to the modifications specified in the Schedule."
15. A reading of the above provision makes it clear that the employer is liable to pay compensation for the injuries caused to the apprentice, by accident arising out of and in the course of his training. In the present case, the deceased was apprentice under opposite party and during the course and out is his training, he was electrocuted. Hence, the deceased can be treated as workman 8 MGP,J CMA_740_2010 under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and he is entitled for compensation. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant/ opposite party cannot contend that the applicants are not entitled for compensation.
16. Considering all these aspects, the Commissioner has rightly came to the conclusion that the applicants are entitled for compensation for death of the deceased and has granted just and reasonable compensation, for which interference of this Court is unwarranted. The appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
17. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed by confirming the order dated 05.05.2010 in W.C.No.76 of 2007 (F) on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour at Nalgonda. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 15.12.2023 GVR