1. United Insurance Company is the appellant who filed the appeal challenging the award and decree passed in WC No. 55 of 2002 dated 22.12.2003 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmens’ Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour – III, Hyderabad in WC No. 55 of 2002 dated 22.12.2003, in granting compensation of Rs. 4,20,345/- for the injuries suffered by the claimant.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The claimant stated that he was employed as driver on the lorry bearing No. AP 13 T 3801 in the first respondent and is a workman within the meaning of the Act. On 20.2.2002 while he was proceeding as driver on the said lorry from Thandur towards Hyderabad with load of Thandur stones in the lorry and on reaching near Yenkepally gate, at Culvert No. 211, a RTC Bus bearing No. AP 10Z 4478 coming from opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against his lorry resulting which, the applicant received grievous injuries and was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for treatment and the applicant received fracture of right leg both bones, amputation of left leg big toe and other grievous injuries. The police at Vikarabad Police Station registered a case in Crime NO. 30 of 2002 under Section 337 of IPC. The applicant stated that the said accident occurred out of and during the course of employment. He stated that he was drawing wages of Rs. 4,000/-per month and he was aged about 22 years at the time of accident. Therefore, he claimed Rs. 5,00,000/- as lumpsum compensation against the first respondent-owner of the lorry and also against the second respondent-Insurance Company.

3. The first respondent-owner of the lorry bearing No. AP 13 T 3801 admitted that the applicant was employed by him about one month prior to the accident and the accident occurred on 20.2.2002 and the applicant was aged 22 years and he is aware of the accident and visited the applicant and he stated that the lorry was insured with the second respondent-Insurance Company.

4. The Second respondent-Insurance Company filed its counter denying the averments in the petition and submitted that the applicant was not employed by the first respondent-owner of the lorry, to drive the vehicle. It is also stated that the owner of the RTC bus is a necessary party for the proceedings and it is stated that the Insurance Company was neither informed by the applicant nor by the first respondent, which indicates clear collusion between them to cause loss to the Insurance Company and the amount claimed is also excessive, exorbitant.

5. On behalf of claimants, he himself examined as AW-1 and Exs A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of respondents none were examined but Ex. D1 insurance policy was marked.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial.

1. Whether the applicant Sri Akbar Khan met with an accident on 20.2.2002 while he was driving the vehicle bearing No. AP 13 T 3801 in the employment of first opposite party as driver and sustained injuries in the accident which arose out of an in the course of his employment?

2. If yes, what is the percentage of physical disability and the consequent loss of earning capacity?

3. who are liable to pay compensation to the applicant? And

4. what is the amount of compensation entitled by the applicant.

7. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the accident lorry, the respondents 1 and 2 being owner and insurer respectively of the lorry, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. In order to determine the compensation, the Commissioner taken into consideration of the G.O.Ms.No. 30 LET & F (Lab II) dated 27.7.2000 wherein the Government of Andhra Pradesh has fixed the Minimum Rates of Wages, for employees working in the employment of public motor transpo