C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) SINCE all these appeals arise out of the orders in the claims made before the Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act (the act), arising out of the same accident, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Appellant and second respondent in all these appeals are the same. First respondents in these appeals are the petitioners-claimants in the petitions before the Commissioner.

( 2 ) CMA No. 2149 of 2001 arises out of W. C. No. 136 of 1999, which is a claim made by the driver, and CMA No. 2150 of 2001 arises out of W. C. No. 137 of 1999, which is a claim made by the cleaner of the lorry bearing No. AP-25-T-4785 belonging to the second respondent. The other CMAs arise out of the claims made by the persons, who were traveling as employees of the second respondent in the said lorry AP-25-T-4785 at the time of the accident.

( 3 ) THE case, in brief, of the first respondents in their claim petitions is that on 8. 8. 1998 when they were proceeding in the lorry bearing No. AP-25-T-4785, belonging to the second respondent, during the course of their employment with him, the said lorry met with an accident resulting in injuries and consequent permanent disability to them. Second respondent in his counter admitted the relationship of employer and employee between him and the first respondents, and alleged that inasmuch as his lorry was insured with the appellant, it is the appellant that has to pay the compensation to the claimants. Appellant filed its counters putting the claimants to proof of their involvement in an accident said to have arisen out of and during the course of their employment with the second respondent. In support of their cases, claimants examined themselves as P. W. I in their respective cases and the Doctor who issued the disability certificate to them was examined as PW. 2. No evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced on behalf of the appellant or the second respondent. The Commissioner held that the accident occurred out of and during the course of employment and that the claimants are entitled to the amounts arrived at by him in the orders under appeals and that appellant, as insurer, is also liable to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants.

( 4 ) THE main contention of Sri Kota subbarao, the learned Counsel for the appellant is that since no notice under-Section 10 of the Act was issued to the appellant, it was deprived of the opportunity to get investigated the accident, and the involvement of the claimants therein and the injuries received by them and their alleged disability as a result of those injuries. His other contention is that since there is no proof as to the age and earnings of the claimants and their employment by the second respondent in his lorry, the Commissioner was in error in awarding compensation to them against the appellant, and in any event since the risk of the coolies traveling in the lorry is not covered by the policy of insurance taken by the second respondent, appellant cannot be made liable for payment of the compensation payable to the coolies. Sri KM. Mahender reddy,. learned Counsel for the claimants, relying on Union of India v. T. R. Varma, air 1957 SC 882, A. A. Haja Muniuddin v. Indian Railways, 1993 ACJ 235, Rajanna v. Union of India, 1995 (2) LLJ 824, g. Saramma v. Md. Jabbar Sharif, 1997 (2) ald 782 = 1997 (1) ALT 299, Shyam 404 sunder v. Ram Kumar, 2001 (8) SCC 24, rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Nand Kishore, AIR 2001 Raj. 334, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Uma Dutt, 1999 acj 447, Zubeda Bano and others v. SRTC and others, 1991 (1) LLJ 66 and Sohan Lal passi v. P. Sesh Reddy, 1997 (1) ALD (SCSN) 3 = 1996 ACJ 1044, contended that since the trial before the Commissioner is summary in nature, provisions of CPC and evidence Act cannot be applied thereto. Relying on United India Insurance Company limited v. Ramulu, 2000 (1) ALT 292, o. T. P. S. U. P. S. E. B. v. Workman Comp. Commr. and Lab. Commr. , 1997 (

Click Here to Read the rest of this document