IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.1203 of 2001 Date:18.12.2009 Between:- United India Insurance Company, represented by its Divisional Manager, Branch Office VI, Hyderabad. ..Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 And Dhara Vajramma and others .. Respondents/Applicants and Opposite Party No.1 JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.05.2000 passed in W.C.No.58 of 1996(F) on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Rangareddy District, wherein the claim of respondent Nos.1 to 3 was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.85,013/- on account of the death of the deceased Dhara Chandraiah, who died in an accident that occurred in the course of his employment on 16.08.1995. 2. Respondent No.1-applicant No.1 is the wife, applicant No.2 is the daughter and applicant No.3 is the mother of the deceased Chandraiah. According to them, the deceased was working as a labourer on the tractor bearing No.AP 23 T 1150 belonging to respondent No.4 herein on a daily wage of Rs.60/- and the tractor belonging to respondent No.4 and insured with the appellant. It is alleged that on 16.08.1995, while the deceased was going in the tractor as a labourer along with transformer, which was being taken to Hyderabad for effecting repairs, near Tree No.34 Medchal, the vehicle over turned on account of rash and negligent driving by its driver, as a result of which, the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries and died while undergoing treatment in Gandhi Hospital. A case in Crime No.105 of 1995 was registered by Medchal Police. 3. Respondent No.4-owner of the vehicle filed a counter admitting that the deceased was working as a labourer on the daily wage of Rs.50/- on his tractor and also admitting that the accident occurred on 16.08.1995 resulting in the death of the deceased. The appellant herein-insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability. 4. During the enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the applicants and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the opposite parties and Exs.R-1 and R-2 were marked. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Commissioner held that the deceased Chandraiah was a workman, a labourer on the tractor and he died in the accident that occurred in course of his employment. The learned Commissioner further put the wages of the deceased at Rs.1,115/- per month as per G.O.Ms.No.58 and applying the suitable multiplier factor applicable to his age of 38 years, arrived at a compensation of Rs.84,544/-, and by adding the Court fees and Advocate fee, awarded total compensation of Rs.85,013/-. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer filed the present appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that the tractor was insured with a limitation regarding the use, that it shall be used only for agricultural purpose, and carrying of the transformer for repairs, not being an agricultural purpose, no liability can be fastened on the appellant-insurer. He would further contend that even otherwise no extra premium is paid by the owner covering the risk of the labourers and hence, the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation for the death of the deceased. 7. As seen from the evidence on record, the criminal case record and also the admissions of respondent No.4-onwer of the vehicle, the deceased was employed as a labourer to work on the tractor and on the date of the accident, the deceased along with others was transporting the transformer from their village to Hyderabad for the purpose of effecting repairs. It is to be noted that the transformer was erected in the village to cater to the supply of power to cultivate the lands of several agriculturists including respondent No.4, who is the owner of the tractor. As the transformer failed to function, the same was being taken on the tractor for affecting repairs. The erection of the transformer, its maintenance and upkeep, no doubt, is the job of the Electricity Department. However, the agriculturists in the area who were directly effected on account of the disrepair of the transformer have chosen to take the initiative of taking the transformer for getting it repaired and respondent No.4 and the deceased lent the services of his tractor trailor for the said purpose. The repairing of the transformer and making it operational so that the power supply can be resumed for cultivation purpose is, therefore, having direct bearing on the cultivation of the lands. It cannot, therefore, be said that the tractor trailor was put to a totally different use than the one connected with agriculture. It is not a case where the tractor was let out by the owner for transport of any construction material or any other purpose totally unconnected with agriculture. It is a common practice in the villages for the cultivators to arrange for necessary repairs locally or taking the equipment to a nearby place so that the cultivation operation can go on smoothly unhindered instead of waiting for the concerned department to initiate action. In the circumstances, it is held that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the tractor trailor was put to a different use than the agricultural purpose cannot be countenanced. 8. However, a perusal of the policy would show that the risk in respect of labourer is not covered and no premium is also paid in that regard. The risk in respect of driver alone is covered by payment of additional premium of Rs.15/- apart from other items of coverage but the risk in respect of a labourer is not covered by the policy and no additional premium is also paid for the same. As the coverage under the policy is essentially a matter of contract between the insured and insurer, and as the contract does not provide for coverage of risk in respect of labourer, no liability can be fastened on the appellant-insurer for payment of compensation. 9. It is stated that the appellant has deposited the entire amount of Award and the applicants have already withdrawn half of the said amount, in pursuance of the interim order passed in C.M.P.No.6085 of 2001 dated 11.04.2001. Having regard to the fact that the applicants are poor villagers and that it may not be possible for them to repay the amount at this length of time, it is directed that the appellant may not recover the amount, already withdrawn, from the applicants. The appellant is, however, at liberty to recover the said amount from the owner of the vehicle. Similarly, the applicants are also at liberty to recover the balance amount of Award from the owner of the vehicle. The appellant is entitled for refund of the balance amount lying in deposit. The impugned Award is modified accordingly. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ____​______________ G. V. SEETHAPATHY, J 18th December, 2009 AMD