THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANIOUS APPEAL No.2675 of 2004 Date:08.12.2014 Between:
Atluri Rama Devi and others.
. Appellants.
AND Smt. Chintapalli Uma Sundari and another.
. Respondents.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANIOUS APPEAL No.2675 of 2004 JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred against orders dated 28-08- 2003 in W.C.No.15/1999 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada whereunder the claim of appellants was dismissed.
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows:
Deceased-Venkateswara Rao was a driver of lorry baring No.AP.16.W.2844 belonging to first respondent herein, which is insured with second respondent herein. He was an employee under the first respondent herein and during course of employment, on 28-08-1998, when the lorry with load of tea powder was coming from Gowahati to Hyderabad, due to heavy rain, the driver stopped the lorry and both driver and cleaner slept in the lorry and when the cleaner woke up, he found the driver died and he was 38 years and drawing Rs.4,000/- per month as salary as on the date of his death. Appellants claimed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation being wife and children. On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada dismissed the application holding that the appellants failed to prove that they were dependants on the income of the deceased as on the date of the death. Now aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim, present appeal is preferred.
2. Heard arguments.
3. Advocate for appellants submitted that the conclusions of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour are erroneous, incorrect and contrary to law. He submitted that the lower authority failed to appreciate the fact that the workman died in the course of employment due to stress and strain. He further submitted that lower authority erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellants does not fall under the definition of dependants as defined in Section 2 (1) (d) of Workmen’s Compensation Act (for short ‘W.C Act’). He further submitted that lower authority failed to appreciate that all the applicants are legal heirs of the deceased and they are covered under the definition given under Section 2 (1) (d) of W.C Act. He further submitted that the Assistant Commissioner is not justified in drawing inference against the appellants, when W.C Act is a beneficial legislation.
4. On the other hand, Advocate for Insurance Company submitted that lower authority has elaborately considered provisions of the Act and legal pronouncements and that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the lower authority. He submitted that when there is no pleading and evidence attracting the meaning of dependent, the lower authority was right in dismissing the claim of the appellants. He further submitted that when the appellants failed to prove the mode and manner of accident/death, the lower authority was right in dismissing the claim of the appellants.
5. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this appeal is whether the order in W.C.No.15/1999, dated 28-08-2003, on the file of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada is legal, proper and correct?
6. Point:-According to appellants, first appellant is the wife of deceased-Venkateswara Rao and the other appellants are their children. She was examined as A.W.1 and it was specifically suggested to her that the deceased did not die while on duty and that there was no coverage for the death of the deceased. According to first respondent herein, three was a second driver in the lorry, but the appellants i.e., A.W.1 denied it. On behalf of the first respondent herein, the second driver was examined as B.W.2., who deposed that he was co-driver with fish load from Bhimavaram to Gowhati and in the return, they left Gowhati with Tea Dust load to Hyderabad and the deceased expired near petrol bunk, while taking rest. So the evidence of B.W.2 is quite contra to the pleading and evidence of A.W.l with regard to death of the deceased. Even cleaner who is examined as B.W.3 also deposed in the same lines as stated by B.W.2 which clearly contradicts the version of appellants.
7. One of the objection taken was that the appellants failed to show that they are dependants as defined in Section 2 (1) (d) of the W.C Act. As seen from the application and evidence of A.W.1, no where, it is stated that the appellants are dependants. There is no reference in the application or in the evidence about the parents of the deceased. As the lower authority i.e., Assistant Commissioner of Labour on an elaborate consideration of legal pronouncements held that the petitioners cannot be treated as dependants as defined in Section 2(1) (d) of the Act as there is neither evidence nor pleading. There is a distinction between dependent and legal heir. Every legal heir may not be a dependant. To claim any relief as legal heir, it is sufficient if it is shown that claimants are legal heirs, but to claim relief as dependants particularly compensation, it is incumbent on the claimant to establish dependency, then substantiate and justify the claim. I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence by the lower authority and on the other hand, it rightly assessed the evidence on the objection raised by the opposite party. I do not find any incorrect findings in the order of the lower authority and all the findings are based on material evidence. On a scrutiny of the material, I am of the view that the lower authority has not committed any error in assessing the factual position or legal position, therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the lower authority.
8. For these reasons, I am of the view that the appeal is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
9. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits, but in the circumstances without costs.
10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand disposed of.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:08.12.2014 mrb