ASSOCIATED TRANSPORT CO Vs. V HANUMANTHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE C. M. A. is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation directing the Associated Transport Company to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,130 within one month from the date of the order. One Durgamma who was said to be an employee of V. Hanumantha Rao died on 2nd December, 1964, in an accident by a lorry A. P. G. No. 5478, driven by one Maqbool Ahmed, an employee of the Associated Transport Company. The said lorry was insured with Ruby General Insurance Company Limited. As a result of the accident which ended in loss of life of Durgamma, her husband filed a petition against P. Hanumantha Rao under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Therein the respondent seems to have agreed to pay the amount claimed which was Rs. 2,100. An order was passed accordingly. Sometime after the order, V. Hanumantha Rao filed a petition claiming his right to be indemnified by Associated Transport Company, Hyderabad. He had impleaded Ruby General Insurance Company as well but that company's name was deleted by the order of the Commissioner on the ground that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass any order against the Insurance Company. The Commissioner however held that under Section 13 he had jurisdiction to decide the liability of the Associated Transport Corporation. On the evidence adduced he came to the conclusion that the driver of the lorry lost control of the vehicle and knocked down Durgamma while she was on the foot-path as a result of which she died. He directed payment of the amount of compensation which V. Hanumantha Rao was directed to pay to the husband of the deceased plus the costs of the proceedings which were determined at Rs. 30. As against this order the Associated Transport Corporation has come up in appeal.

(2.) SEVERAL points have been raised in this appeal. It was alleged that the deceased was not a work-woman within the meaning of Section 2 (n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act because her employment was of a casual nature and was otherwise than for the purposes of the employer's trade or business, viz. , for the construction of the building of the employer himself. It was also alleged that the petitioner has no right as he has not deposited the compensation amount ordered by the Commissioner as contemplated by Section 13. Further the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to take any action against the appellant herein for Section 13 is only declarative of the right. It does not prescribe any special remedy or forum for enforcement of such right. The Commissioner is not vested with any power in this behalf by the statute which created this right. The only course left to Hanumantha Rao was to enforce his right by way of suit and not by way of an application to the Commissioner. It is urged that the remedy resorted to was wholly misconceived. As I think the last argument is not without force and impinges on the very jurisdiction of the Commissioner, I propose to deal with it first. It is obvious that if this point be decided in favour of the appellant it will be unnecessary to deal with other points. I have therefore to notice the relevant provisions in this Act to start with.

(3.) SECTION 19 of the Workmen's Compensation Act reads thus: Reference to Commissioner.-