17 Years On, AP High Court Awards ₹3.70 Lakh To Kin Of Deceased Lorry Helper, Crushed To Death While Confronting Negligent Tractor Driver

Holding that the accident occurred out of and in the course of employment, a Justice Nyapathy Vijay held,

“…what all is required to make the employer liable to pay compensation is that the accident should have a casual connection to the employment and should be in the scope of employment of the employee. In this case, there can be no dispute that the accident occurred in the course of employment as the cleaner/deceased was going in the lorry on the instructions of the employer. The grey area is whether the accident is out of employment. The facts leading to the accident in this case is the thoughtless driving of the driver of the tractor, which led to the driver of the lorry and the deceased to get down from the lorry and questioned the driver of the tractor regarding the manner of his driving. The act of getting down from the lorry is a natural reaction and more so by the deceased, as the driver had got down from the lorry too. It would be unrealistic for the cleaner/deceased to remain seated in the lorry while the driver gets down as his loyalty and job would be called into question. The visualisable understanding of facts does not show any imprudent act or unnecessary exposure to peril by the deceased considering realities of life rather than on utopian idea of human conduct.”

The court awarded compensation of  Rs.3,70,632 which shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident–September 17, 2008. 

Facts

The Court was hearing an appeal filed under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act challenging a 2010 order passed by the Commissioner of Labour for Workmen's Compensation whereby the claim of compensation of the dependents of the deceased cleaner was rejected.

In 2008 Shaik Masthan @ Mastan Vali–thedeceased), who was employed as a Cleaner on a Lorry, along with the driver and helper of the lorry, had gotten off the lorry and was involved in an altercation with the driver of a tractor, who was driving in a rash and negligent manner. During this altercation, one RTC bus continuously kept blowing horn and the tractor driving, with an intent to give way to the bus, drove the vehicle over deceased and the helper without noticing that they were in front of the vehicle, thereby, crushing them in the process, leading to the death of the deceased. As the accident had occurred in the course of employment, the application was filed by the wife and two minor daughters of the deceased seeking compensation.

However, the Commissioner in its order rejected the claim stating that the deceased had entered into an altercation with a third party on the road and received injuries when the tractor moved forward and, therefore, the accident cannot be said to have any nexus to the employment of the deceased to award compensation. Accordingly, no compensation was awarded. Aggrieved, the claimants moved the high court in 2011. 

Findings:

As there was no dispute with respect to the employment, accident and coverage of policy to the lorry and wages, the Court had to determine whether the accident had nexus with the employment of the deceased, as the accident happened when the deceased was arguing with the driver of the tractor in the middle of the road, and consequently, to determine whether the claimants, under such circumstances, were entitled to compensation.

The Court referred to Section 3(1) MV Act, which prescribes the liability to be placed on the employer to pay compensation and also enacts, under the proviso, situations where the employer can be exempted from paying compensation. In this context, the Court noted that the paramount requirement and the most popular phrase under the Act to make the employer liable for compensation is that the accident should be “out of and in the course of employment”. Once, the claimants establish the above requirement, the defences available to the employer as prescribed in the proviso are then examined.

The Court then referred to Mackinnon Mackenzie And Co., (P) Ltd., vs. Ibrahim Mahmmed Issak [(1969)2 SCC 607], where it was held that there must be a causal relationship between the accident and the employment. Taking this into consideration, the Court held that the act of getting down from the lorry along with the others to confront the driver of the tractor was a natural human reaction. In this regard, the Court further held,

“The narrative further shows that the accident occurred on account of rash driving by the driver of the tractor in an attempt to give way to the APSRTC bus which was honking continuously. It should be noted that even assuming that there is some degree of unnecessary exposure to peril by the cleaner/deceased, the same is not a license to the driver of the tractor to run over him. The exposure to peril may not be of any consequence in cases where the injury/death occurred on account of the negligent act of a third party. In the facts of this case, there is prima facie evidence to establish that the accident occurred on account of the rash driving of the driver of the tractor, the exposure to peril in such a scenario is inconsequential.”

Even the defences prescribed under Section 3(1) were not available to the employer as the deceased was neither under any influence of alcohol nor did he disobey any diktat of the employer nor had he removed any safety equipment provided to him.

Thus, the Court ruled that the accident occurred out of and in the course of employment and the claimants were entitled to compensation. Additionally, the employer as well as the Insurance Company were held to be jointly and severally liable for the compensation amount.

Noting a 17 years long delay from the date of accident, the Court allowed the CMA.

Case Title: Smt. Shaik Asrifoon & 2 others v. Guddanti Vijaya Krishna & Another

Date: 07.03.2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order