C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.

1. C.M.A. No. 483 of 2005 is filed by the Insurance Company against award, dated 27.01.2004. in W.C. No. 79 of 1999 (NF) on the file of the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad (for short 'the Commissioner') feeling aggrieved by award of Rs. 75,833/- towards compensation in favour of Gaddamidi Papaiah, S/o Balaiah.

2. C.M.A. No. 1626 of 2004 is filed by the said Gaddamidi Papaiah feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in his favour in W.C. No. 79 of 1999.

3. For convenience, the parties are referred as they are arrayed in C.M.A. No. 483 of 2005.

4. The facts leading to the filing of W.C. No. 79 of 1999 are, briefly, stated as under:

5. Respondent No. 2 is the owner of the tractor and trailor bearing Nos. AP 25 B 9957 and AP 25 B 9958, respectively. It is the case of respondent No. 1 that he was engaged by respondent No. 2 on a monthly salary of Rs. 4,000/- and daily batta of Rs. 50/-. It is his further pleaded case that on 18.01.1998, while he was travelling as a labourer for loading and unloading in the said trailor and when the tractor has reached the limits of Lingampally Kalan, at about 8.00 pm., the driver of the tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and in a zigzag manner, resulting in the tractor and trailor falling in a ditch, on account of which, respondent No. 1 has fallen down from the trailor and sustained fracture of both bones of right hand, multiple fracture of right hip, fracture of both bones of left leg, fracture of skull, fracture of ribs and multiple and grievous injuries on various parts of the body. Therefore, he has claimed Rs. 3 lakhs in lumpsum as compensation.

6. Respondent No. 2 filed a counter-affidavit, wherein he has supported the case of respondent No. 1.

7. On behalf of the appellant, a duly Constituted Attorney filed a counter affidavit, wherein while denying the liability of the appellant, it was specifically stated that the tractor and trailor alleged to have been involved in the accident was used only for agricultural purpose, that it was not used for carrying labourers and that therefore the appellant was not liable to pay the compensation.

8. Based on the respective pleadings, the Commissioner has framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the Applicant is workman within the meaning of the Act and whether the accident occurred during the course of employment under Opposite Party No. 1?

2. If so, to what relief the Applicant is entitled and against which of the Opposite parties?"

9. In support of the claim of respondent No. 1, he has examined himself as P.W. 1 and examined one Dr. L. Ramulu as P.W. 2 and got Exs. A1 to A5 marked. On behalf of the appellant, it has examined one Mr. D. Padma Rao, Senior Assistant, as R.W. I and got Exs. B1 and B2 marked.

10. In his award, the Commissioner has mainly relied upon the evidence of P.W. 2, Ex. A3-injury Certificate and Ex. A5-Disability Certificate.

11. Before undertaking further discussion, it is to be noted that the Commissioner has not framed an issue on the liability of the appellant with reference to the policy obtained by respondent No. 2.

12. Be that as it may the evidence on record is sufficient for this Court to decide the said issue which was specifically raised in the counter affidavit and also in the present appeal by the appellant.

13. The points that arise for consideration in these appeals are:

(1) Whether determination of compensation by the Commissioner is proper and correct?

(2) Whether the appellant is liable to pay compensation under the insurance policy and relevant statutory enactments? and

(3) Whether respondent No. 1 is entitled to enhancement of compensation?

Re Point No. 1

14. As noted hereinbefore, it is the pleaded case of respondent No. 1 that due to the accident involving tractor and trailor on which he was travelling, he has suffered fracture of both bones of right hand, multiple fracture of ri