JUDGMENT :

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the National Insurance Company Limited, under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, aggrieved by the award of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-IV, Hyderabad, passed in W.C. Case No. 104 of 2001.

2. The respondents 1 to 6 herein were the applicants before the Tribunal below, claiming compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, on account of death of one Sri Mohd. Saber. Applicant No. 1 is the wife, Applicant Nos. 2 to 5 are the children, and Applicant No. 6 is the mother, of the deceased; whereas, Opposite Party No. 1 was the owner of the lorry bearing registration No. AP. 9T. 8106, and also father of the deceased, and, Opposite Party No. 2 was the insurer of the said lorry. It was the case of the applicants before the Tribunal that the deceased was employed by the first Opposite Party as driver on the said vehicle and, on intervening night of 22/23-9-2001, when the deceased was proceeding from Hyderabad to Gujarat on National Highway No. 9, near Sagar Dhaba, after crossing Zahirabad town in Andhra Pradesh, the deceased-driver lost control over the steering, and, apprehending dangerous situation, he jumped from the lorry for the fear of losing life, and while doing so, he came under the wheel of the lorry; as a result, he suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. It was stated, that the deceased was employed by the first Opposite Party, who is his own father, on monthly salary of Rs. 3,000/-. Pleading that the deceased was in employment of the first Opposite Party, and the accident occurred during the course of employment, compensation of Rs. 2,40,000/- was claimed from the Opposite Parties. It was their further case that as the first Opposite Party was the owner and second Opposite Party was the insurer of the said lorry; as such, both are liable for payment of compensation.

3. Before the Tribunal below, the first Opposite Party, who was the owner of the said lorry, remained absent by not claiming notice sent by the Tribunal, and as such, he was set ex parte. The second Opposite Party, who was the insurer of the vehicle, contested the proceedings. While disputing the allegations of the applicants, mainly the claim was resisted on the ground that the deceased was driving the vehicle of his own father, who was the first Opposite Party, and, claim of employment of the deceased with the first Opposite Party is concocted story, for the purpose of claiming compensation. Further, the second Opposite Party, disputing the employment of the deceased, pleaded that the claim petition is not maintainable under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and sought for dismissal of the same.

4. Having regard to the pleadings on record, the Tribunal below framed the following questions for consideration:

“(1) Whether the deceased workman late Sri Mohd. Saber met with an accident in the intervening night of 22/23-9-2001 as a driver on the lorry bearing No. AP. 9T. 8601 and died?

(2) If yes, whether the deceased workman was in the employment of the first Opposite Party at the time of his death?

(3) If yes, who are liable to pay compensation to the applicants? And.

(4) What is the amount of compensation entitled by the applicants?”

5. To prove the claim, on behalf of the applicants, first applicant was examined as A.W. 1 and documentary evidence under Exs. A-1 to A-4 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was let in, but, however, a copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex. D-1.

6. The tribunal below, having regard to the oral and documentary evidence on record had recorded the finding that the deceased/driver died in the accident during the course of employment with his father. Further, accepting that the deceased was drawing wage of Rs. 3,000/- per month, the Tribunal below applied relevant multiplying factor 207.98, and, awarded compensation of Rs. 3,11,970/-,