R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under section 30 of the Workmen s Compensation act, 1923, is filed by the applicants, aggrieved by the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation and Assistant commissioner of Labour-1, Guntur, in W. C. Case No. 543 of 1996.

( 2 ) THE appellants herein have filed application before the Tribunal below claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- against the respondents-opposite parties, on account of accidental death of the deceased, by name, ande Anneswara Rao on 14-9-1996. it was the case of the applicants that the deceased was working as driver with O. P. No. 1 and, was driving tractor bearing No. A. P. 7e. 6328 and on 14-9-1996, while he was driving the said tractor for preparing the wet land for plantation of paddy, the tractor turned turtle. it was their case that in the said accident, the deceased received grievous injuries and died. On a complaint to the polie, a case was registered in Cr. No. 69 of 1996 on the file of the Polie Station, Medikondur. it was the further case of the applicants that the deceased was aged about 28 years and was earning Rs. 1,800/- per month as wages. Compensation was claimed on account of loss of dependency ete. , f rom the O. P. Nos. 1 and 2.

( 3 ) THE respondents herein, who were the opposite Parties 1 and 2, contested the proceedings before the Tribunal belovv. The first respondent-O. P. No. 1, vvhile admitting, that the deceased was vvorking as driver, and died during the course of employment, it was his case that, as much as the tractor was insured with the second respondent-O. P. No. 2, he is not liable to pay any Compensation. it was the case of the second respondent- o. P. No. 2-lnsurer that the tractor of the first respondent-O. P. No. 1 was not insured with them and the Compensation claimed was excessive and exorbitant.

( 4 ) WITH reference to the above pleadings, thetribunalbelowframed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of the Act and he died due to personal injuries received in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment? (2) What vvas the age of the deceased at the time of accident? (3) What were the wages paid to the deceased at the time of accident? (4) Amount of compensation payable? and (5) Who are liable to pay the compensation?

( 5 ) TO prove the claim, on behalf of the claimants, the first applicant was examined as A. W. 1 and Exs. A-1 to A-4 were marked on their behalf. On behalf of the respondents, r. W. 1 vvas examined and Exs. R-1 fo R-4 were marked.

( 6 ) THE Tribunal below, having regard to the oral and documentary evidence on record, vvhile recording the finding that the deceased died in the accident occurred during the course of employment, has held that inasmuch as no proof vvas produced to show that the deceased vvas having valid driving license, no compensation can be awarded to the applicants. However, referring to the provision under Section 140 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988, compensation of rs. 50,000/- is avvarded on account of no- fault liability , in addition to Rs. 100/- on account of stamp duty.

( 7 ) IN this appeal, it is submitted by sri N. Subba Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants that inasmuch as it vvas proved that the accident occurred during the course of employment, the Tribunal below ought to have assessed the compensation payable to the applicants. Further, it is submitted, in any event, merely referring to the report of the R. W. 1, the tribunal belovv ought not to have recorded any finding on the issue of driving licence held by the deceased-driver. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Sohan Lal passi v. P. Sesh Reddy and Narchinva V. Kamat v. Alfredi Antonio Doe Martins.

( 8 ) ON the other hand, it is submitted by sri R. Venkat Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent that the first respondent-owner has

Click Here to Read the rest of this document