IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.366 of 1999 Between: The Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Limited ..... PETITIONER AND Kanchimi Thirumalaiah and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Counsel for the Respondents : The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.366 OF 1999 JUDGMENT: This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company against the award of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation-cum- Assistant Commissioner of Labour, II Circle, Ranga Reddy District in W.C.No.235 of 1993, dated 25.11.1997. 2. The parents of the deceased are claimants in the aforesaid case. The said claim came to be filed on account of death of their son who was employed as a labourer on a Tractor bearing No. AIB-4609 and Trailor bearing No. AIB-4608 owned by the fourth respondent herein. The third and fourth respondents herein, being brothers are the sons of Sri Ram Reddy, are alleged to be members of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and the deceased was working on daily wage of Rs.40/- under the third respondent herein. The accident occurred on 13.05.1993 when the deceased along with other labourers was loading the Tractor-Trailor with cow-dung and manure for unloading at the agricultural fields of third and fourth respondents herein. The said Tractor-Trailor was driven in a rash and negligent manner at high speed resulting in the load of manure together with the Tractor-Trailor falling down on the head and right hand of the deceased, who succumbed to the injuries on 15.05.1993. The police registered a case in Cr.No.20 of 1993 under Section 304(A) IPC. The said vehicle was insured with the appellant. The parties filed their counters before the commissioner where the appellant has taken a specific stand that the vehicle no doubt was insured with them but the same belonged to fourth respondent herein and the deceased was employed by the third respondent. It was also contended that the deceased was a casual labourer and does not come within the definition of ‘workman’ under Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. The learned commissioner on a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the deceased was working with the joint family of respondents 3 and 4 and died during the course of the employment. The learned commissioner consequently assessed the damages under it that as per the Post-mortem report and First Information Report the age of the deceased was 20 years and considering his age as 20, only Rs.1,000/- was taken as his monthly income as against the claim of Rs.1,200/- per month claimed by the parents and awarded a total compensation of Rs.89,600/-. To the said amount Court fee of Rs.179/-, advocate fee of Rs.500/- was added and a total compensation of Rs.90,279/- in aggregate was allowed. Against the said order the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company. 3. Sri. A.V.K.S. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, has strenuously contended that there is evidence on record to show that the fourth respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the contract of the insurance is with him. It is also on record that the deceased was working with third respondent herein and consequently the Insurance Company cannot be said to be liable. He also relied on the fact that there is no evidence that the deceased was regularly employed and according to him, at best, the evidence points out that he was engaged only as a casual labour. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Mine Planning & Design Institute Ltd. V. Ramu Pasi & another[1] for the proposition that the casual labour was not covered by the definition of ‘workman’ under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and consequently the order under appeal is without jurisdiction. 4. I have considered the aforesaid submissions. It is no doubt true that the vehicle stands in the name of fourth respondent and the Insurance Policy obviously is in the name of fourth respondent herein. However, it is the specific case of the claimants that respondents 3 and 4 are members of HUF and the work of unloading of the cow-dung and manure with which the deceased was concerned was being done for the purpose of unloading the same in the agricultural fields of respondents 3 and 4. Further, in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 3 and 4 they admit that they are members of joint HUF and the deceased was working on their Tractor. Thus, irrespective of the vehicle being registered in the name of one of the members of the joint family i.e., fourth respondent, since, the deceased was working for HUF it cannot be said that the usage of the vehicle was not by the owner and consequently, the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is liable to be rejected. 5. So far as the second contention regarding the nature of employment of the deceased is concerned, it is in the evidence of the father of the deceased, as PW.1, that the deceased was employed on daily wage of Rs.40/- and working as such for respondents 3 and 4. It is not borne out by the oral evidence before the commissioner that the deceased was working only as a casual labour but he was used for agricultural operations by respondents 3 and 4. It cannot, therefore, be said that the deceased was only a casual labourer and is outside the purview of the workmen’s compensation. It is mentioned that the deceased was young man of 20 years as per the First Information Report, Ex.A-1 and Post-mortem report, Ex.A-3. The compensation awarded, therefore, cannot be said to be excessive or unjust and I am not inclined to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 11, 2009 MD [1] 2006 ACJ 521