@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.@mdashThe Respondents 1 to 3 filed W.C. No. 106 of 2003 before the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation
and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-II, Hyderabad (for short ''the Commissioner'') against the 4th Respondent and the Appellant, claiming an
amount of Rs. 2 lakhs, as compensation. It was pleaded that Sri Moijuddin, husband of the 1st Respondent, father of 2nd Respondent, and son of
the 3rd Respondent, was engaged on 13-05-2000, for loading of timber into a lorry bearing No. ABT-9679, owned by the 4th Respondent, and
insured with the Appellant, and in the course of employment, he died, out of fatigue. It was pleaded that he was being paid emoluments at Rs.
100/- per day, and that he was aged 40 years.
2. The 4th Respondent filed a counter, denying the very factum of employment, or engaging the deceased. He pleaded that his lorry was hired by
one Mr. Omar Sab for transporting wood from Allapur Village, and that when the labourers were loading the lorry with timber, the deceased
suddenly came under the influence of epilepsy, and died due to the subsequent cardiac arrest.
3. The Appellant also filed a counter, denying the allegations in the case. They too have denied the existence of relationship of employer and
employee, between the deceased and the 4th Respondent. Other grounds were also urged. Through his order dated 03-08-2009, the
Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 1,46,324/-, as compensation. The same is challenged in this C.M.A., filed u/s 30 of the Workmen''s
Compensation Act (for short ''the Act'').
4. Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that there was absolutely no relationship of employer and employee between
the deceased and the 4th Respondent, and that the provisions of the Act have no application. He contends that, when according to the 1st
Respondent herself, the deceased was a daily labourer, and that she does not know where and by whom he was engaged, at the relevant date, and
the very claim was untenable.
5. Learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3, on the other hand, submits that, even where an individual is engaged as labourer for an activity of
loading and unloading, the provisions of the Act get attracted to such persons. She contends that there is no denial of the fact that the deceased
was engaged for the purpose of loading, and the Appellant is liable to shoulder the claim, that arises against the owner of the vehicle. She places
reliance upon the judgment of Karnataka High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Puttappa @ Puttanna and Kempamma and N.
Lakshman,
6. Normally, in cases of this nature, the owners of the vehicle remain ex parte, and the entire burden, to defend, rests upon the Insurance
Companies. This is a rare case, where the owner of the vehicle entered appearance, and put forward his contention, by filing a counter. The W.C.
case was filed by alleging that the deceased was engaged by the 4th Respondent for loading of the wood. The evidence of AW-1, the 1st
Respondent herein, is hardly of any use. For all practical purposes, she pleaded ignorance, as to the exact avocation or engagement of the
deceased. In his counter, the 4th Respondent stated that he hired the lorry to one Mr. Omar Sab, and the latter, in turn, arranged for loading of the
lorry with timber. These facts remained unrebutted. Even if it is assumed that the deceased was engaged for loading of the wood, the engagement
was, by Omar Sab, and not by the 4th Respondent.
7. There is any amount of uncertainty as to the cause of death of the deceased. It is stated to be on account of epilepsy, and another version is that
he died due to serious sun-stroke. Either way, if the death took place during the course of employment, by the owner of the lorry, things would
have been different. The 4th Respondent has absolutely no concern with the engagement of the deceased for loading, and it was just the look out
of the person, who took the lorry on hire.
8. Learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3, placed reliance upon the judgment in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Puttappa (1 supra). That
was a case in which labourers were engaged by the owner of a Tractor, for loading and unloading of the sand. One of the labourers died on
account of the accident, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. It was held that the labourer engaged for loading and
unloading, by the owner of the tractor, would be attracted by the provisions of the Act, in the event of any accident, involving tractor, and resultant
injury to, or death of the workers, so engaged. Such is not the case here. Admittedly, no accident, as such has taken place, involving the lorry, in
this case. Secondly, the owner of the lorry did not engage any labourer, and the lorry itself was hired by a third person. Under these circumstances,
the order passed by the Commissioner cannot be sustained in law.
9. Accordingly the appeal is allowed, and the order under appeal is set aside. It is however directed that the amount, if any, withdrawn by the
Respondents 1 to 3, shall not be required to be refunded.
10. There shall be no order as to costs.