ORDER :

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order in W.C. Case No. 51 of 2004 dated 04.04.2006 of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle-I, Guntur.

2. The third respondent before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation (Commissioner for ‘short’) is the appellant. The respondents 1 to 4 were the applicants and the respondents 5 and 6 were the respondents 1 and 2 respectively before the Commissioner.

3. The respondents 1 to 4 filed an application before the Commissioner claiming a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- against the respondents 1 and 6 and the appellant payable with interest at 18% per annum from date of death of the deceased till realization and for costs. This claim was filed on account of death of one Sri. Kumbha Yesaiah. He is the husband of the first respondent, father of the second respondent and son of the respondents 3 and 4.

4. The contention of the respondents 1 to 4 before the Commissioner was that Sri. Yesaiah was a labourer working for the fifth respondent, who was then the owner of tractor-trailer AP-7G-6456/6457 and that it was insured with the appellant. Their case was also that on 14.09.2002 at about 6.00 a.m. Sri. Yesaiah along with others went on the above tractor as coolies to load the earth from the quarry near Christian Burial Ground, at Phirangipuram and to unload in the lands of the fifth respondent. While they were working in the above quarry digging the earth and loading the same into the trailer, a big boulder, which got disturbed on account of digging, rolled down and fell on the back of Sri. Yesaiah causing several injuries resulting in his instantaneous death, according to the applicants. Crime No. 69 of 2002 was registered in Phirangipuram Police Station on the complaint given in respect of this incident. Thus, the applicants/respondents 1 to 4 claimed before the Commissioner that the death of Sri. Yesaiah was during and in the course of employment for the fifth respondent.

5. The respondents 1 to 4 further contended before the Commissioner that Sri. Yesaiah was 30 years old by the date of incident, earning Rs. 3000/- per month towards wages apart from batta, which he was spending for the benefit of entire family. On account of his untimely death, according to them, they lost support. They further contended that inspite of demands, since no compensation was paid by the respondents 5, 6 and the appellant, they laid the claim for compensation before the Commissioner.

6. The respondents 5 and 6 did not choose to contest this claim before the Commissioner. It is only the appellant that resisted their claim filing a counter denying the nature of the accident. It also denied that the deceased was working for the fifth respondent as a labourer on the tractor, while also denying that it was insured with it. It further contended that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and the sixth respondent and it did not receive any intimation about transfer of vehicle from the sixth respondent. Thus, it claimed that it is not liable to satisfy the claim. It also contended that the policy issued to the sixth respondent did not cover the risk in respect of labourers.

7. On the material, the Commissioner settled the following issues for the purpose of enquiry:

“1. Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of the Act and he died due to personal injuries he received in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment?

2. Amount of compensation payable?

3. Who are liable to pay the compensation?”

8. Before the Commissioner, on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4, the first respondent examined himself as AW-1 while relying on Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. On behalf of the appellant, RW-1 an assistant in its office was examined while relying on Ex.B1 to Ex.B3. Upon consideration of the material, the Commissioner held that the deceased Sri. Yesaiah was a workman as per Workmen Compensation Act and suffered multipl