M. NARAYANA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Judgment, in C. M. A. No. 1151 of 2001, arises out of a Civil Miscellaneous appeal, filed by the sole appellant, against r-1 to R-5, under Section 30 of the workmen s Compensation Act, 1923, questioning certain parts of the adjudications made by and set forth in para 3, infra.

( 2 ) THE Orders in the Cross-Objections filed in the C. M. A. by the cross-objectors arise out of the same, being filed under rule 22 of Order XLI, C. P. C. questioning certain parts of the said same Orders, set forth in para 3, infra.

( 3 ) ORDERS, dated 23-4-2000, of the Commissioner for Workmen s compensation, Rajahmundry, made in w. C. No. 37 of 1998, of his file.

( 4 ) PERUSED the material papers of the record.

( 5 ) ARGUMENTS were heard of learned counsel for the sole appellant, and the learned Counsel for the cross-objectors, corresponding to R-1 to R-4 in the C. M. A.

( 6 ) THE sole appellant in the CMA corresponds to R-1 in the Cross-Objections, and Opposite Party No. 2 in the said w. C. No. 37 of 1998 on the file of the said commissioner. R-1 to R-4 in the CMA correspond to the cross-objectors 1 to 4 in the Cross-objections, and applicants 1 to 4 in the said W. C. R-5 in the CMA corresponds to R-1 in the Cross-Objections, and also, opposite party No. 1 in the said W. C.

( 7 ) THE parties are, here-in-after, referred to with reference to their respective descriptions in the said W. C. 37 of 1998, unless, otherwise, so specified.

( 8 ) THE applicants filed the said W. C. 37 of 1998, before the said Commissioner, under section 22 of the Workmen s Compensation act, 1923, (enactment of 1923), for recovery of total compensation of Rs. 1,22,310/-, with interest thereon, at 12% per annum, and costs, in respect of the death of the deceased, by name, Dasari Appal Rao, around 10-30 P. M. on 5-8-1996, in an accident, at Vutada work-spot, belonging to oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC), out of and in the course of, his employment, as a worker, under Opposite Party No. 1. as the Contractor, in respect of the said work, which was insured with Opposite Party no. 2, etc. etc. etc.

( 9 ) OPPOSITE Party No. 1 filed a written statement in the said W. C. 37 of 1998, inter alia, admitting the material averments made by the applicants, in the W. C. , but, however, urging, that, because, he (Opposite Party no. 1) obtained an insurance policy from opposite Party No. 2, in respect of the said works, it is only Opposite Party No. 2, which is liable to pay the compensation, in respect of the said death of the deceased worker, together with interest and costs, etc. , etc. , etc.

( 10 ) OPPOSITE Party No. 2 filed written statement in the said W. C. No. 37 of 1998, inter alia, denying all the material averments in the said W. C. , and putting the applicants, to strict proof thereof and also, denying its liability to pay any compensation, whatever, in respect of the said death of the deceased worker, and also, denying its liability to pay any interest and costs, claimed in the said w. C. and hence urging for dismissal thereof, in toto, etc. , etc. , etc.

( 11 ) THE said Commissioner, after due settlement of the issues therein, enquired into the said W. C. 37 of 1998, in the process whereof he recorded the oral evidence of a. W. 1 and D. Ws. 1 and 2, and exhibited the documentary evidence, by way of Exs. P-1 to P-5 and Exs. D-1 to D-14, and, later after due arguments there-into, finally, adjudicated thereupon, by his now impugned orders, dated 23-4-2000, set forth in para 2, supra, as under: (I) Awarded total compensation of rs. 1,06,002/-, as against the maximum W. C. claimed compensation of Rs. 1,22,310. 00. (ii) Awarded a sum of Rs. 245. 00 towards Stamp Duty paid on the w. C. and (iii) Directed Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2, to pay the monies, covered by clauses (i) and (ii) jointly and severally, etc. , etc. , etc.

( 12 ) AGGRIEVED thereby, and, hence, questioning the, validity and legality, thereof, but, only, in so far as, the same fix

Click Here to Read the rest of this document