THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.20 of 2005 Between:
Dated 06th August, 2014 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., And Gajula Manemma and others …Appellant …Respondents Counsel for the appellant: Sri K.V.Krishna Rao for Smt.A.Anasuya Counsel for the respondents: ----
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
This appeal arises out of order, dated 19.12.2002, in W.C.No.24 of 2002(F) on the file of the Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation, 1923, Nalgonda (for short ‘the Commissioner’).
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the legal heirs of one Gajula Muthyalu, who died while driving tractor and trailor bearing Nos.AP24 T 7831 and AP24 T 7832 respectively belonging to respondent No.4. The said vehicle was admittedly insured with the appellant. The factum of the accident and the death was reported to the police who registered Crime No.11 of 2002 under Section 304-A IPC. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 approached the Commissioner for compensation for the death of their sole bread-winner.
Respondent No.4 remained ex parte. The appellant filed counter affidavit, wherein it has raised the dispute of employer and employee relationship between respondent No.4 and the deceased, besides disputing the age of the deceased as 30 years.
In support of their claim, respondent No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and filed Exs.A1 to A5. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant. It has however marked Ex.B1-copy of the insurance policy.
On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Commissioner has awarded Rs.2,51,656/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of accident till the date of deposit of the compensation amount.
At the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondent No.4 having remained ex parte, respondent No.1 failed to establish the relationship of employer and employee between respondent No.4 and the deceased and that no acceptable evidence showing the age of the deceased as 30 years was produced by respondent No.1.
A perusal of the award shows that the Commissioner has relied upon Ex.A3-postmortem report to hold that the age of the deceased was 30 years. Evidently, the deceased was a tractor driver and had no formal education. In the absence of any school certificates, it is not unreasonable to rely on the age as determined by the Doctors at the time of post-mortem.
With regard to the employer and employee relationship, the Commissioner has relied upon the police investigation report, the driving licence and the fact that there is no dispute about the deceased driving tractor belonging to respondent No.4 in concluding that he was the employee of respondent No.4. In my opinion, the reason on which this finding is based cannot be said to be without basis.
With regard to the submission of the learned counsel that wage limit at the time of accident for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.2,000/-, though a vague ground to this effect is raised in the grounds of appeal, the same is not substantiated either in the grounds or at the time of hearing by the learned counsel for the appellant.
For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award of the Commissioner. The CMA is accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the CMA, C.M.A.M.P.No.30523 of 2003 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 06th August, 2014
VGB