M. Seetharama Murti, J. - This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act,1923 (presently known as Employees Compensation Act), ('the Act', for brevity) by the unsuccessful 3rd opposite party is directed against the order dated 30.12.2007 in W.C.No.12 of 2006 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy District (Circle-II), Hyderabad.

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant/3rd Opposite Party ('the 3rd opposite party', for brevity). There is no representation for the respondents/applicants 1 to 3 ('the applicants', for brevity). I have perused the material record.

3. The introductory facts, which are necessary for consideration, in brief, are as follows:

The 1st applicant, who is the wife of the deceased-Ajay Kumar and the applicants 2 and 3, who are their daughters had together filed the claim petition before the learned Commissioner claiming a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act for the untimely death of the said deceased due to his involvement in a motor vehicle accident that had occurred out of and during the course of his employment as driver on the Allwyn Nisson Mini lorry bearing Registration No.AP 13W 7946 of the 1st opposite party, which was insured with the 3rd opposite party. In the claim petition, the case of the applicants is that while the deceased was driving the said Mini lorry, the said lorry dashed against a cyclist at Nayakal village, Kalluru Mandal and that as a result, the cyclist succumbed to the injuries on the spot and that thereafter, the deceased proceeded on his lorry at a high speed to escape from the scene of accident and had dashed his lorry against another lorry bearing No. AP 12T 2626 coming from the opposite direction and that in the accident, he had sustained injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot and thus at the relevant time, the deceased was the driver on the aforementioned lorry of the 1st opposite party and that he was drawing a wage of Rs.4,000/- per month and that the 1st opposite party had purchased the lorry from the 2nd opposite party just before the accident and running it as its owner from the time of the said purchase, though the transfer of the vehicle was not affected in the official records of the transport authority. The 1st respondent had filed a counter admitting that he is the owner of the vehicle having purchased the same from the 2nd opposite party on 24.11.2004 under the agreement of sale executed on a Rs.50/- non-judicial paper. He had further admitted in his counter that his mini lorry was involved in the accident on 05.08.2006 at 9.30 hours and that at that time, the deceased was the driver on the said vehicle and that the deceased was drawing Rs.4,000/- per month as wage besides Rs. 100/- per day as batta at the relevant time and that the deceased was working under him since four years prior to the accident. He had further stated that the said mini lorry was insured with the 3rd respondent/insurance Company and that the insurance policy was in force and had prayed for directing the 3rd opposite party to pay the compensation. The 2nd opposite party had remained ex parte before the learned Commissioner. The 3rd respondent had filed a counter resisting the claim on various grounds. At trial, the 1st applicant, who is the wife of the deceased, was examined as PW1 and exhibits A1 to A5 were marked. The 1st opposite party was examined as RW1 and an officer of the 3rd opposite party was examined as RW2. Exhibit B1, the copy of the agreement of sale of the vehicle was exhibited through RW1. Exhibit B2, the policy of insurance was marked on the side of the 3rd opposite party. On merits, the learned Commissioner had awarded a compensation of Rs.4,12,724/- recoverable from opposite parties 1 and 3 and directed that the same may be deposited by way of demand draft drawn in favour of the Commissioner for Workmen'