M. NARAYANA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS judgment, accordingly to Law, rises out of a civil miscellaneous Appeal, filed by the sole appellant, against R1 and R2, under section 30 of the workmen s Compensation act, 1923, questioning the, validity and legality, of the adjudications made by, and set forth, in Para 2, infra.

( 2 ) ORDER, dated 20-4-2002, of the commissioner for Workmen s Compensation, hyderabad, made in WC No. 135 of 2001, of his file.

( 3 ) PERUSED the material papers of the record.

( 4 ) ARGUMENTS were heard of the learned Counsel for the sole appellant, and the learned Counsel for the contesting R. 1

( 5 ) THE sole appellant in this civil miscellaneous appeal corresponds to the sole applicant in the said WC No. 135 of 2001, of the file of the said Commissioner. Rl and r2, herein correspond, respectively, to Rl and R. 2 therein.

( 6 ) THE parties are, hereinafter, referred to, as such, as in that WC, lest, so specified.

( 7 ) THE Sole applicant filed the said wc No. 135 of 2001, before the said commissioner, against R. 1 and R. 2, under section 22 of Workmen s Compensation act, 1923 (Enactment of 1923) for recovery of total compensation of Rs. 2,00,000. 00 in respect of the injuries and disabilities, alleged to have been sustained by him, at ground 1. 30 p. m. , on 7. 6. 1999, at LB Nagar Ring road, out of, and in the course of, his employment, as the Cleaner of the lorry bearing No. AP 11 T 975, owned by R. 1, and insured with R. 2, and that at the relevant time of the accident, the applicant was cleaning the lorry, on the instructions of its driver, and, while the applicant was in the process of actually cleaning the lorry, the driver started the same with a jerk, due to which, the applicant came into contact with electric wires, and received shock, and, fell down from the lorry, and sustained, among other injuries cervical spinal injury, due to which, he was disabled from moving from the bed, and to discharge his duties, as a cleaner, etc. , etc. , and that he was drawing Rs. 2,000. 00 per month, as salary, and, batta of Rs. 30. 00, per day, and was aged about 19 years, at the relevant time.

( 8 ) IN that W. C. R. 1 being, the owner of the said lorry AP 11 T 975 (accident lorry) filed a written statement, inter alia, admitting the employment of the applicant, under him, as the Cleaner of the said lorry, and that, he was injured, out of, and in the course of, his employment, but, however denied his liability to pay any compensation, because, the accident lorry was duly insured with R. 2, and the driver of the lorry himself is having valid driving license, etc. , etc. ,

( 9 ) IN that W. C. R. 2, being, the insurance Company of the said accident lorry filed a written statement, inter alia, denying all the material averments in the OP, and putting the applicant, to strict proof thereof, and denying its liability to pay any compensation, whatever, and hence, urging for dismissal of the W. C, as against it, with costs to it etc. , etc.

( 10 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the said commissioner enquired into the said W. C. No. 135 of 2001, in the process whereof, he recorded the oral evidence of P. W. I and p. W. 2, and, exhibited the documentary evidence. By way of Exs. Al to A. 18, and exs. R. l to R. 3, and Ex. B1, and, later, after due arguments there into finally, adjudicated thereupon, by her now impugned orders, dated 29-4-2002, set forth in Para 2, supra, as under: (A)AWARD total compensation of Rs. 1,73,107. 00, as against the total WC claim of rs. 2,00,000/- (B)AWARDED Advocates fee of Rs. 1,000. 00 and (C) Directed R. 1 and R. 2 to pay to the applicant, jointly and severally, monies covered by Clauses (a) and (b) supra.

( 11 ) AGGRIEVED thereby, and hence, questioning the, validity and legality, thereof, the sole applicant filed the present civil miscellaneous appeal, as set forth a Paras 1 and 2, supra, but, only, insofar as the same did not award to total compensation of rs. 2,00,000/-, as claimed, as well as, because, the same d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document