JUDGMENT:

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation Act and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Narsapuram, West Godavari District (hereinafter called as “the Commissioner”), in W.C.No.05 of 2010 dated 05.11.2014.

2. The insurer of the lorry bearing No.AP 16T 2057 belonging to the 6th respondent herein is the appellant. The respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein are the applicants.

3. Respondent Nos.1 to 5/applicants herein filed the said W.C. claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of Sri Sai Adinarayana (hereinafter called as “the deceased”), who died in an accident that occurred on 15.03.2010 during the course of his employment. They stated in the application before the Commissioner that the deceased was employed as a loading and unloading worker by the 6th respondent on his lorry bearing No.AP 16 T 2057. On 15.03.2010, while returning from Razole after loading coconuts in the said lorry, near Coconut Mini Hospital, Narasapur, at about 12.00 p.m the driver of the lorry dashed the stationed lorry to avoid dashing of the car, which was coming in opposite direction. As a result of which, the deceased sustained severe injuries. Immediately he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Palakol, for treatment, where he was declared as died. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 40 years and earning Rs.4,000/- p.m including batta. The appellant being the insurer and the 6th respondent herein being the owner of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

4. Counter was filed by the insurer/appellant denying all the contentions of the applicants and also denied the employment of the deceased with the 6th respondent; that there is no employer and employee relationship; that the deceased was died not due to negligent driving of the driver of the lorry; that the deceased was a Jattu coolie working at Uma Coconuts, Narasapur and that non-joinder of Uma Coconuts as a party to this case is bad in law and prayed to dismiss the application.

5. The 6th respondent/owner also filed counter disputing the material averments and further he did not admit the employment of the deceased, the deceased was a workman within the meaning of the Act, the occurrence of the accident, the narration of accident, workman sustained injuries during the course and out of his employment and the wages of the deceased. He also denied the negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. The amount of compensation claimed by the appellant is highly excessive and exorbitant. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the application.

6. The Commissioner settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material :

1. Whether the deceased Mr.Sai Adinarayana met with an accident on 15.03.2010 and died during the course and out of his employment as loading and unloading worker on lorry bearing No.AP 16 T 2057 in the employment of the OP-1?

2. If yes, who are liable to pay compensation to the Applicants? And;

3. What is the amount of compensation entitled by the Applicants?

7. In the course of enquiry, AW.1 and AW.2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf of the appellant/insurer, R.W.2 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked. On behalf of the 6th respondent, he himself was examined as RW.1 and no documents were marked.

8. On the material, the Commissioner held that the deceased died in an accident during the course and out of his employment under the 6th respondent and as the policy was in force at the time of accident, directed the appellant and respondent No.6 herein to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.3,68,340/- by way of demand draft drawn in favour of Commissioner of Employees Compensation and the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Eluru, West Godavari District, within thirty days from the date of receipt of that order, failing which the applicants are entitled for interest at 12% p.a. on the amount of compensation from the date of the default of payment. It is further or