JUDGMENT :-Heard both the Counsel.

2. Since both appeal as well as cross-objections arise out of same W.C. and the parties are common, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Aggrieved by the order dated 29-5-2001 passed by the Court of Commissioner for Workmens Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour at Nizamabad, in W.C. No.33/1997 (F) the Insurance Company filed the appeal.

4. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Commissioner, the claimants, who are brothers and mother of the deceased, filed cross-objections for enhancement.

5. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was working as cleaner on the lorry bearing No.ATR-6517 under the employment of owner of the lorry. United India Insurance Company Limited is the insurer of the lorry. On 7-4-1996 at about 5.30 p.m., while the lorry was· going from Hyderabad to Nagpur, when the lorry reached the shivar (outskirts) of Dudgaon on National High Way No.7, in front of South and North Owners and Drivers Association, the driver of the lorry asked the deceased to see the rear tyre. But accidentally, the deceased fell down and came under the rear tyres due to which his head was crushed and he died on the spot. Alleging that the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged 18 years, earning an amount of Rs.1,800/- per month apart from daily batta, the claimants filed claim petition claiming an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-.

6. The owner of the lorry remained ex parte and the insurer contested the matter and denied the averments of the claimants.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the Commissioner framed the following issues for consideration :

1. Whether the deceased worker is a workman within the meaning of the Act and whether he died during the course of employment under opposite party No.1 ?

2. If so what was the monthly wages drawn by the deceased ?

3. What was the age of the deceased workman at the time of his death ?

4. Whether the applicants are entitled to receive the compensation? If so what extent and against which of the opposite parties?

8. In support of the case of the claimants, the claimant Nos.1 and 3 were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A-1 to A-9 were marked. On behalf of the Insurance Company, its Office Assistant was examined as R.W.1 and EX.B-1 was marked.

9. Based on the evidence on record, the Commissioner held that the deceased was working as cleaner in the Lorry No.ATR-6517 and that he died during the course of employment. Considering the claim of the claimants and the wage normally paid, in the area concerned, to a cleaner, the Commissioner fixed the salary of the deceased at Rs.l,800/- and taking the age of the deceased as 18 years as per post-mortem report Ex.A-5, granted a total compensation of Rs.2,03,742/-. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company filed the appeal and not being satisfied with the compensation granted, the claimants filed cross-objections for enhancement of compensation.

10. The learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that the Commissioner without there being any evidence, held that the accident occurred during the course of employment and the same is not justifiable. He contended, that without there being any documentary evidence on record, the Commissioner fixed the wages of the deceased at Rs.1,800/-. He submitted that the minimum wages that can be awarded is Rs.1167/- per month and therefore the award of compensation is excessive. He contended that since the Commissioner recorded findings without there being any evidence on record, and on that ground, the appeal is maintainable. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgments reported in Depot Manager, APSRTC v. Abdul Sattar, 1995 (1) ALD 219 = 1995 (1) ALT 413, Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. v. Ibrahim Mahmmod Issak, 1969 ACJ 422 and United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Hyderabad v. Vaggu Balram, 2004 (3) ALD 156.

11. On the other hand the learned Counsel appearing for the claimants/cross-objectors contended that the Commissioner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document