Case: Elkachenu Kistamma &amp; Another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. &amp; Another

1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. The husband of Appellant No.1 was working as a driver with Respondent No.2 in a rice mill. Some electrical problem arose in the rice mill due to the burning of a fuse in the transformer. It appears that the husband of Appellant No.1 was asked by the employer to look into the matter and see if the fuse could be replaced. While the husband of Appellant No.1 was obeying the orders of his employer, he suffered an electric shock, fell down from the transformer and died on the spot. 4. In view of the death of the husband of Appellant No.1, a claim was made to the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour - I, Hyderabad. The Commissioner, by an order dated 16th July, 2009, awarded total compensation of Rs. 4,17,586/- to the appellants. 5. Feeling aggrieved by this award, the Insurance Company (Respondent No.1) preferred an appeal before the Andhra Pradesh High Court being Civil Misc. Appeal No.1130 of 2009. By an order dated 29th November, 2010, the High Court took the view that it was not part of the duties of the husband of Appellant No.1 to repair the electrical fault. Therefore, as per the Rules the appellants were not entitled to any compensation. We have looked into the case papers and find that the husband of Appellant No.1 being an employee of Respondent No.2 had no option but to obey the orders passed by his employer and since the electrical fuse had got burnt and the rice mill appeared to have come to a stand-still, he was asked to replace the fuse. 6. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants that this is not the first time the fuse had got burnt and there were earlier instances also and usually the employees including the husband of Appellant No.1 were asked to replace the fuse, particularly since the linesman whose duty was to change the fuse was located several kilometers away. It is under these circumstances that the husband of Appellant No.1 obeyed the orders given by his employer (Respondent No.2) and attempted to change the fuse in the transformer. 7. Unfortunately, some mishap occurred as a result of which the husband of Appellant No.1 received an electric shock and died on the spot. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that the husband of Appellant No.1 was asked to replace the fuse only by his employer, we are of the opinion that the High Court ought not to have gone into strict technicalities of the matter and ought to have looked at the claim of the appellants a little more sympathetically Under the circumstances, we set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore the award made by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour - I, Hyderabad. 9. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 states that the awarded amount has been deposited with the Commissioner. The appellants are at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited with the Commissioner. If any interest has accrued on the amount, that interest should also be paid to the appellants. 10. We make it clear that the awarded amount will be in addition to any other amount that has been received by the appellants from the employer or from any other source as a result of the accident. 11.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]Under the circumstances, we set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore the award made by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour. We make it clear that the awarded amount will be in addition to any other amount that has been received by the appellants from the employer or from any other source as a result of the accident.