Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
National Insurance Company Ltd., vs Smt. Madivada Savitri 4 Others on 20 February, 2025
APHC010158752013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3460]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 650/2013
Between:
National Insurance Company Ltd., ...APPELLANT
AND
Smt Madivada Savitri & 4 Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. MUTEVI MURALIKRISHNA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. CH RAGHU RAM
The Court made the following:
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.650 of 2013
JUDGMENT:
1. The present C.M.A is filed under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 questioning the Order dated 19.02.2013 in W.C.No.37 of 2005 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Machilipatnam, Krishna 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 1 to 3 are wife and daughters of late Ramanjaneyulu (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') respectively. The deceased was working as Driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP-16-W-2649 owned by O.P.No.1. The deceased had taken the lorry to Calcutta on the instructions of O.P.No.1/owner. After loading the vehicle, the deceased along with the cleaner started to return from Calcutta to Vijayawada on 16.10.2004. While returning back in the journey, the vehicle crossed the limits of Itchapuram P.S., where the deceased said to have met an accident on 18.10.2004 and while undergoing treatment for the injuries suffered, the deceased died due to heart attack at Tanuja Nursing Home, Itchapuram. As the deceased died in the course of employment, the application was filed seeking compensation. The Insurance Company was made as party-respondent as the vehicle was insured vide policy bearing No.550400/31/04/6300005666, which was in vogue for the period from 30.09.2004 to 29.09.2005. The claim is made for Rs.4,00,000/- taking into consideration the wage of the deceased at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month. The application was filed by the wife and minor children of the deceased respectively.3
4. O.P.No.1/owner of the lorry did not contest the case and remained ex parte.
5. O.P.No.2-Insurance Company filed its counter disputing the claim on the ground that there was no employer and employee relationship of the deceased with the O.P.No.1/owner and also disputed the accident and the resultant heart attack suffered by the deceased.
6. On the basis of the pleadings, the Commissioner framed the following issues for consideration:-
1) Whether the deceased Madivada Ramanjaneyulu was a workman u/s.2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act at the time of his death? If so, whether the deceased had died as a result of accident arising out of and in the course of employment?
2) If so, what is the age and wage of the deceased at the time of his death?
3) What is the amount of compensation?
4) Who are liable to pay compensation to the dependants of the deceased?
7. Claimant No.1 i.e. the wife of the deceased was examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.10 i.e. Certificate issued by Tanuja Nursing Home, No Objection Certificate, Office copy of legal notice, Returned cover, Postal acknowledgment, Driving license, Bill of loading, Copy of Insurance policy, Xerox copy of Tourist Permit and Xerox copy of R.C of the vehicle respectively in support of their claim. She reiterated the averments made in the claim application. Another person by name Gujjula Ramakoti Reddy, who was working as a cleaner on the lorry, which was being driven by the deceased from Calcutta to Vijayawada was examined as A.W.2. He deposed that the deceased died due to heart attack near Itchapuram P.S., while returning from Calcutta to Vijayawada.
48. On behalf of the Respondents, one S. Vijaya Mohan, working as Senior Assistant in O.P.No.2-Insurance Company was examined as B.W.1 and he deposed that no F.I.R or Post-mortem Certificate or Death Certificate of the deceased were produced and therefore the O.P.No.2-Insurance Company cannot be fastened with the liability. Another employee of O.P.No.2-Insurance Company by name V.S. Durga Prasad, who was working as Assistant Manager was also examined as B.W.2, who also reiterated the deposition made by B.W.1. On their behalf, Exs.B.1 to B.4 i.e. Copy of Insurance Policy, Claim Form, Medical Certificate issued by Tanuja Nursing Home and Letter dated 17.03.2010 of O.P.No.2-Insurance Company respectively were marked.
9. The Commissioner taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence held that the deceased died in the course of employment due to stress and strain, which is inherent in discharge of duty by the deceased and awarded compensation of Rs.4,02,009/-. Hence, the present C.M.A is filed.
10. Heard Sri Mutevi Murali Krishna, learned counsel for the Appellant- Insurance Company and Sri Ch. Raghu Ram, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents.
11. The learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company contended that the nature of death is highly suspect in the absence of F.I.R and Post- mortem Report and the evidences filed by the Claimants does not inspire confidence and are not relatable to the requirements to establish the death of the deceased in the course of employment and on account of heart attack. It was also contended that heart attack cannot be considered to be a causative factor to claim compensation under the Act.
12. This Court having considered the respective contentions is of the opinion that there is some substance in the submission made by the counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company that in the absence of F.I.R and Post-
5mortem Report there is some amount of doubt as to the reason of death of the deceased.
13. However, one fact which is in favour of the Claimants is Ex.A.2 i.e. No Objection Certificate issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Itchapuram P.S., on 18.04.2004 permitting the transport of the corpse of the deceased to be handed over to his relatives, who had died due to heart attack while coming in the lorry bearing No.AP-16-W-2649 from Calcutta to Vijayawada on 16.10.2004. In the said Certificate, it was mentioned that the deceased died while coming from Calcutta to Vijayawada on 16.10.2004. The letter establishes the nature of death and the fact that the heart attack was the contributory factor for the death of the deceased. The Medical Certificate issued by Tanuja Nursing Home in which it was mentioned that the deceased died on account of heart attack was marked as Ex.A.1.
14. The Appellant-Insurance Company had not disputed the correctness of No Objection Certificate issued by the police (referred supra Ex.A.2), which contains necessary details of death of the deceased i.e. date of death and cause of death of the deceased cannot contend that in the absence of F.I.R and Post-mortem Report as no attempt was made to summon the concerned Sub-Inspector of Police, Itchapuram who had issued the Certificate. In the absence of any dispute to this crucial document, it would not be open to the Insurance-Company to dispute the claim.
15. Coming to the second part of the argument that the heart attack cannot be considered to be causative factor to claim compensation under the Act, it is to be noted that the vehicle was driven from Vijayawada to Kolkata and the incident happened while the vehicle was returning to Vijayawada from Kolkata. The one way distance is about 1200 kms. and it would be fair to factor the stress and strain of driving such long distances that would have contributed to the death of the deceased. In a similar fact scenario, this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Smt. 6 Chukkala Eshwari and Others1 had considered this aspect and after to Judgments of this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court in Depot Manager, APSRTC, Karimnagar v. Gurrapu Anjamma2, Jyothi Ademma v. Plant Engineer3, Nellore & Another and Param Pal Singh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.4 held that heart attack having been accelerated due to visualisable stress and strain, the compensation should be paid. In this case also, the very distance of driving can be said to be a contributory factor for the death of the deceased.
16. In the light of the above, the view taken by the Commissioner being a plausible view, the same cannot be interfered with as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fulmati Dhramdev & Anr. v. New India Assurance Co., Ltd., & Anr5
17. Therefore, the C.M.A is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
18. Since the incident had happened in the year 2004 and considering the time gap of 21 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 with accrued interest 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: 20.02.2025 IS 1 2024 SCC OnLine AP 897 2 1999 5 ALT 684 3 2006 (5) SCC 513 4 2013 (3) SCC 409 5 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 746 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.650 of 2013 Date: 20.02.2025 IS