Aggrieved over the Award dated 14-6-2004 passed in W.C. No.60 of 2003 by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour-IV, at Hyderabad, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The deceased by name B. Vittal was engaged as labourer on 7-8-2003 by the third respondent herein on his lorry bearing No. AP.7V 5567 for unloading Ammonium Nitrate bags from the said lorry in the premises of the lnax Products Company. It was averred in the claim petition that on that fateful day, at about 11.00 a.m. while the deceased was unloading the 50 Kg. bags of Ammonium Nitrate from the above said lorry of the third respondent, the deceased fell down due to slipping of his leg, resulting which, the 50 Kg. bag fell on the deceased. As a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries. immediately, he was shifted to nearby hospital and from there, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, wherein, while undergoing treatment, he died on 11-8-2003. A case in Crime No.243 of 2003 was registered on the file of the Police Station, Patancheru. Thereafter, inquest and postmortem were conducted on the dead body of the deceased. It was further averred that the deceased was being paid Rs.150/- per day towards his wages and he was aged 35 years at the time of accident. Therefore, the applicants filed the above said claim petition, claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-.

3. The third respondent herein, who is the first Opposite Party before the Tribunal, filed counter denying all the averments made in the claim petition. However, he admitted the registration of the case by the police and also coverage of insurance to his lorry by the second opposite party and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition against him.

4. The appellant herein, which is Second Opposite Party before the Tribunal also filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition. OP.2 denied the employment of the deceased with the OP.1, manner of accident, and the wages paid to him. OP.2 also denied the coverage of policy to the vehicle in question.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Commissioner framed the following points for settlement.

1. Whether the deceased Late Sri B. Vittal, met with an accident on 7-8-2003 when he was in the employment of the first Opp. Party as a labourer on the lorry bearing No.AP. 7V 5567 sustained injuries in the accident and died due to the Injuries.

2. If yes, who are liable to pay compensation? and,

3. What is the amount of compensation entitled by the applicants?

6. In order to prove the claim, on behalf of the applicants, AWI was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked. On behalf of the Opposite Parties, RW.1 was examined and EX.B-1 policy and EX.R-1 were marked.

7. On a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the deceased died due to injuries sustained by him in the accident while he was unloading Ammonium Nitrate bags in the course of his employment with OP.1 as labourer. Then proceeding to assess the compensation, the Tribunal awarded compensation of RS.2,15,824/-.

8. Aggrieved over the same, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal.

9. It is argued by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the employer and employee relationship between the deceased and OP.1, who is owner of the lorry was not proved and therefore, there is no liability on the part of the Insurance Company to pay any compensation. He further argued that as the company raid exgratia, the deceased was not engaged by OP.1, but engaged by the Company for unloading purpose and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/applicants argued that even if the contractor/owner of the lorry engaged the deceased for unloading of Ammonium Nitrate bags, the liability of the Insurance Company cannot be excluded.

11. In this c