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.446 of 1999 Between: The New India Assurance Company Limited .... PETITIONER AND Bonkuri Siddaiah and minor sons Rep. By the father of B. Siddaiah and another ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. S.A. Chari Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. P. Gopal Das The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.446 OF 1999 JUDGMENT: This appeal is by the Insurance Company against the award of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation in W.C.No.73 of 1996, dated 08.12.1998. 2. The claimants are the husband and minor sons of the deceased. The claim for compensation came to be filed on account of death of the wife of the first claimant. She is said to be working on a Tractor belonging to the second respondent and insured by the appellant herein. The said accident occurred on 16.11.1998 where the deceased received injuries resulting in instantaneous death. It is alleged in the claim petition that she was working as an agricultural coolly and earning Rs.2,000/- per month and a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- was claimed. The second respondent herein, who is said to be the employer and owner of the Tractor, filed a counter affidavit denying the averments in the claim petition including the allegation that there was an employer and employee relationship. He, however, stated that for one day the deceased was engaged, but unfortunately she met with an accident. 3. On the basis of evidence on record the learned commissioner found that there was a relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and the second respondent herein and also found that the accident occurred during the course of the employment. The learned commissioner, however, did not accept the claim that deceased was earning Rs.2,000/- per month as claimed by the claimants but held that the compensation assessed is Rs.1,15,637/- besides Court Fee of Rs.232/- and awarded aggregate compensation of Rs.1,15,869/-. The said award is in question in this appeal. 4. I have heard Sri S.A. Chari, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P. Gopal Das, learned counsel for the claimant. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the very engagement of the deceased was only for one day as per the counter of the second respondent herein. He also relied upon the statement of AW.1 to the effect that the deceased was working in the house. He also submits that there is absolutely no evidence regarding employment or engagement of the deceased and consequently, at the most she was only a casual labourer and as such does not fall within the definition of the ‘workman’ as held by the Supreme Court in Central Mine Planning & Design Institute Ltd. V. Ramu Pasi & another[1]. He also relied upon the fact that while the deceased and A.W.1 are residents of one village, it is difficult to accept that they are working with the second respondent in another village, which is 15 miles from the village of the deceased. 6. Sri P. Gopal Das, learned counsel for the claimants, submits that there is existing evidence of not only AW.1 but AW.2 also which is sufficient to conclude that the deceased was working on the said vehicle for second respondent herein. The compensation awarded by the commissioner being hardly about Rs.1,15,637/- does not warrant any interference. 7. I have considered the aforesaid submissions. The evidence of AW.1 and AW.2 read together in entirety would show that the deceased was working for more than two years and continuing daily. It is alleged that she was 25 years and working as coolly and financially supporting her family. Apart from AW.1 the evidence of AW.2, who is a co-worker of the deceased, also states that while she was working for the last two months and the deceased was working for the last two years and she died while coming to duty. The accident, therefore, occurred in the course of the employment. The quantum of earning as spoken to by AWs.1 and 2, however, is not supported by any proof and the assessment of damages made by learned commissioner, therefore, is just and equitable in the absence of any other evidence of actual earning. Keeping in view the age of the deceased the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant based upon the statement of AW.1 that she was working in the house is solitary and the evidence of AWs.1 and 2 taken into consideration in entirety does not support the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. Consequently, it cannot be said that the deceased was engaged for only one day and that her employment was only casual. The award of the learned commissioner, therefore, does not warrant any interference. 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