THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR C.M.A No.3454 of 2003 Date:11.11.2014 Between:
The United India Insurance Co.Ltd., represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Near SBH, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad (2nd opposite party in the W.C) . Appellant.
AND Chinna Maremma and others.
. Respondents.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR C.M.A No.3454 of 2003 JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred against orders of Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Mahabubnagar dated 19-04-2003 in W.C.No.106/1996.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are as follows:
The appellant herein is insurance company. Respondents 1 to 3 herein are the claimants and they have filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation contending that deceased O. Balappa was working as a labourer on tractor trailer bearing No.AP 22 T 4132 & 4133 belonging to fourth respondent herein and on 06-07-1995, while the deceased was going on the tractor as a labourer from Eedulur to Ajjilapur with load of logs to unload them at sawmill and when the tractor reached the outskirts of Ajjilapur, the driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, the deceased who slipped from the tractor was fell down and died on the spot. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation from the owner and insurance company and the insurance company denied the relationship of employee and employer between deceased and the fourth respondent herein and on these allegations, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour examined one witness on behalf the claimants and marked six documents and one witness on behalf of the fourth respondent herein and marked Ex.B1 on behalf of the appellant herein and on a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, held that both the respondents i.e., owner and insurance company are jointly liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,60,792/- as compensation and directed them to pay the same with interest. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Advocate for appellant submitted that fourth respondent herein initially filed counter disputing the relationship of employer and employee, but, subsequently, deposed that the deceased was his employee, and the trial Court, without considering the same accepted the relationship of employer and the employee, thereby committed error in ordering the insurance company to pay compensation. He further submitted that the findings of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour are based on mere surmises and conjectures and the award is liable to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for claimants submitted that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, on appreciation of evidence, held that there is employee employer relationship between deceased and the fourth respondent herein and rightly fixed the compensation and that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Court below.
6. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this appeal is whether the order dated 19-04-2003 in W.C.No.106/1996 on the file of Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Mahabubnagar is legal, proper and correct?
7. Point:- Admittedly, vehicle, belonging to fourth respondent was involved in the accident, which was used for business purpose of fourth respondent. According to fourth respondent, who is examined as R.W.1, the deceased was working under him as a labourer. The claimants contended that the deceased was drawing a sum of Rs.1,820/- per month, but the fourth respondent deposed that he was paying only Rs.40/- per day. Though, R.W.1 was cross- examined, nothing could be elicited from him to support the version of the insurance company and that there was no relationship of employee employer between deceased and fourth respondent.
8. Considering the evidence of R.W.1, the learned Assistant Commissioner of Labour held that the claimants duly proved existence of employer employee relationship between deceased and fourth respondent herein and on the date of accident, the deceased was under the employment of fourth respondent. I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal and on the other hand, Tribunal rightly considered evidence of R.W.1, which is fully supported and corroborated with the claim of applicants with regard to relationship of employee and employer. When it was suggested to A.W.1, that her husband Balappa was not an employee of R4 herein, she denied the same.
So except putting suggestions to A.W.1 and R.W.1, the insurance company has not produced any material to show that deceased was not under the employment of R.W.1. Further, the evidence of claimants is supported and corroborated with the F.I.R and charge sheet, which are marked as Exs.A1 & A2. On a scrutiny of the documents and the evidence of A.W.1 and R.W.1, the contention of the Advocate for appellant that the claimants have failed to show the dural relationship of employee and employer cannot be accepted. The learned Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Mahabubnagar has rightly appreciated evidence and there are absolutely no incorrect findings in the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Mahabubnagar. With regard to quantum, there is no serious dispute on behalf of the insurance company and the only dispute is with regard to relationship between the deceased and the fourth respondent herein. As already observed above, the evidence on record would clearly establish that the deceased was under the employment of R4 and as he died in the accident during course of employment, the Tribunal has rightly fixed liability both on the owner and the insurance company and there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial Court and therefore, appeal is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
9. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs.
10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:11.11.2014 mrb