HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A.No.724 of 2005 DT…2-12-2010 Between: United India Insurance Company Limited …..Appellant Vs. Juttu Rani and two others …………Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed assailing the orders, dated 03.06.2005 in W.C.No.14 of 2004 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmens’ Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour-IV, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the claim of the respondents/applicants was allowed in part, holding first and second opposite parties therein jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.2,49,982/-together with stamp fee of Rs.500/- and Advocate fee of Rs.500/- total amounting to Rs.2,50,982/- and directing the first and second opposite parties to deposit the said compensation amount by way of demand draft drawn on any nationalised bank and drawn in favour of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour IV, Hyderabad within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the order, failing which the applicants are entitled to interest at 12% per annum. 2. The deceased was employed by first opposite party as labourer along with other labourers to work on his lorry bearing registration No.AP 28 V 2504 on 28.02.2004 to load and unload poultry manure; that on 29.02.2004 at about 5.00 a.m., while he was sleeping in front of the said lorry and the other labourers were unloading the poultry manure, the driver of the lorry had put it in motion without noticing the deceased and ran over him, causing his instantaneous death. A case in Cr.No.46 of 2004 was registered by Chevella Police Station under Section 304-A I.P.C. Therefore, the dependants of the deceased filed the application claiming compensation. 3. It is the case of the Insurance Company that the death of the deceased did not occur during and in the course of his employment with the first opposite party. The only ground urged on behalf of the Insurance Company is that at the time of his death, he was sleeping in front of the crime lorry and he was not doing work during the course of his employment. 4. However, the said contention appears to be far from truth. It is possible that due to different reason, he might be relaxing with the permission of other co-labourers, who were in fact unloading the poultry manure and the deceased was relaxing in front of the crime lorry. Therefore, it cannot be said that the death of the deceased did not occur during and in the course of employment. More over, the material on record reveals that while his co-labourers were unloading the poultry manure, the deceased was relaxing in front of the lorry in the field due to fear of the presence of snakes there and the same argument has been put forth on behalf of the respondents/applicants. 5. After hearing both sides and after perusing the material on record, this court is of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference from this court and the MACMA is liable to be dismissed. 6. In the result, the MACMA is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 2-12-2010 Stp/Tjs