HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.687 of 2007 Date: 15-10-2014 Between:
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager .. Appellant AND Nandam @ Nadigunti Padma and 4 others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.687 of 2007 ORDER:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the order dated 18-05-2005 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Eluru in W.C. Case No.3 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the Commissioner granted compensation of Rs.2,81,658/- payable to the claimants therein.
2. The brief facts of the case, which are necessary for disposal of the appeal, are that the respondents Nos.1 to 5 herein, who are claimants before the Commissioner, filed the case claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- under the Workmen’s Compensation Act stating that they are dependents of one N. Janardhanarao, who died in a road accident on 10-10-2004 while working as driver on Mini Auto Truck No.AP-16-TU-8470 and during the course of employment under the 6th respondent herein/Opposite Party No.1 in the W.C. The 1st claimant is the wife, 2nd and 3rd claimants are minor children and 4th and 5th claimants are the parents of the deceased N. Janardhanarao. They stated that the deceased Janardhanarao, while working as driver on Mini Auto Truck No.AP-16-TU-8470, met with an accident during the course of employment under the Opposite Party No.1 on 10-10-2004 at 12.30 hours near Basivireddi colony and received multiple injuries and he succumbed to injuries while shifting to Government Hospital, Kanigiri on the date of incident. The deceased Janardhana Rao was earning Rs.3,600/- per month and batta of Rs.30/- per day as Driver and that as the Opposite parties have not paid any compensation, they filed the case before the Commissioner claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-.
3. While the Opposite party No.1/6th respondent herein remained
ex parte, the Opposite Party No.2-Insurance Company/appellant herein filed its counter denying the occurrence of the accident, the employment of the applicant under the Opposite Party No.1, the relationship of employer and worker, the salary of the applicant, the age of the applicant and the other particulars of the claim. The Opposite Party No.2/appellant had stated that the claimants are not entitled to pay compensation as the amount claimed by them is excessive and not in accordance with law.
4. Basing on the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side and placing reliance on Exs.A.1 to A.6, the Commissioner held that the deceased met with an accident on the date of incident while working as Driver and on duty and that Ex.A.6-insurance policy is in force on the date of accident. The Commissioner also held that the evidence of AW.1 is unshaken and it was established from Ex.A.1-FIR that the accident was occurred on the date of incident. The Commissioner also held that as the vehicle was insured with the Opposite Party No.2, the Opposite Party No.1 being the employer and owner of the vehicle and the Opposite Party No.2 being the insurer, are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation and directed them to deposit jointly and severally an amount of Rs.2,81,658/- towards compensation payable to the claimants, within a period of 30 days from the date of order. Challenging the said order, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The following substantial questions of law are raised in the appeal, they are:-
a) Whether the learned Commissioner has power to pass award in the absence of proof of employment of deceased, solely relying upon the oral evidence of claimants?
b) Whether the learned Commissioner can pass the award based on surmises, conjectures and suspicions?
c) Whether the learned Commissioner can arrive at the finding that the deceased was working as driver in the Mini Auto Truck owned by the Opposite Party No.1 at the time of accident without analysing the evidence and without properly discussing the material on record?
d) Whether the initial burden lies on the claimants to prove that the deceased was employed with Opposite Party No.1 as driver of Mini Auto Truck?
e) Whether the learned Commissioner is justified in placing the burden on the Insurance Company to prove that the deceased is not driver of Opposite Party No.1 without appreciating the distinction between burden of proof and shifting onus of proof?
7. All these substantial questions of law raised herein are relate to appreciation of evidence and insufficiency of the evidence on the part of the respondents-claimants.
8. Having gone through the order under challenge and the documentary evidence, I find that the Commissioner, after an elaborate discussion of the evidence adduced on either side and considering the documentary evidence on both sides in Ex.A.1- FIR, Ex.A.2-Inquest report, Ex.A.3-P.M. report, Ex.A.4-M.V.I. report, Ex.A.5-Driving licence, Ex.A.6-Insurance policy and Ex.B.1-Insurance policy, came to the conclusion that the deceased-workmen N. Janardhan Rao died in the course of employment while driving the vehicle belonging to the Opposite Party No.1/6th respondent in the appeal and appellant is the insurer of the vehicle and that the Opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants as Ex.A.6- insurance policy is in force at the time of accident. The Commissioner also placed a reliance on G.O.Ms.No.30 Labour Employment, Training and Factories (Lab.II) Department, dated 27-07-2000 in granting minimum wage of the light vehicle driver. Nothing was brought to notice of Court that the compensation awarded by the Commissioner is unjustified and excessive and the conclusions arrived at by the Commissioner are not justified as such, I do not find any infirmity or illegality warranting interference of this Court, and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. This Court also does not see that any substantial question of law is involved in the appeal.
Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, confirming the order dated 18-05-2005 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Eluru in W.C. Case No.3 of 2005.
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J Date: 15-10-2014 Ksn