JUDGMENT :

VUTUKURU SRINIVAS, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Anantapur (hereinafter called as ‘the Commissioner’) in W.C. No. 29 of 2006 dated 28.01.2010.

2. The insurer of the Tata SUMO bearing No. GA-02A-9603, belonging to the 4th respondent herein, is the appellant. The respondent No. 1 herein is the wife and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the children of M. Mallikarjuna (hereinafter called as ‘the deceased’). The appeal against respondent No. 5 herein, who sold the said Tata Sumo to the 4th respondent herein, dismissed vide order dated 19.04.2016.

3. According to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/applicants, in the application before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation at Anantapur, the deceased was working as a driver under the 4th respondent herein on monthly wages of Rs. 4,000/- p.m. On 23.08.2005, the deceased was waiting near fire station at Tadipartri along with said Tata Sumo bearing No. GA-02A-9603 to attend the personal work of respondent No. 4 herein. In the meanwhile, some unknown persons came and engaged the said vehicle on hire and proceeded towards Guntakal Town and on the next day the dead body of the deceased was found near Bhogalakatta under Yadiki Police Limits. As the deceased died during and in the course of employment, the applicants filed application under W.C. claiming compensation.

4. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein set ex-parte.

5. Counter was filed by the insurer/appellant denying the liability stating that there is no employer and employee relationship; that the deceased was not died during the course of employment; that the deceased has no valid driving license and prays to dismiss the application.

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

1. Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of the workmen’s compensation Act 1923 and he met with the accident arising out of an in the course of his employment resulting his death?

2. What was the age of the deceased-workman at the time of accident?

3. What were the wages paid to the deceased/eligible at the time of accident?

4. What is the amount of compensation payable to the applicants?

5. Who are liable to pay compensation?

7. In the course of enquiry, on behalf of the applicants, AWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. On behalf of the appellant/insurer, RW-1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked.

8. On the material, the Commissioner held that the deceased was a driver worked under respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein in their vehicle bearing No. GA-02A-9603 and a workman as per the provisions of the Act, who died by way of murder arising out of and in the course of his employment and as the policy was in force, at the time of incident, directed the appellant and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein to deposit the compensation amount of Rs. 3,06,947/- and the stamp duty of Rs. 614/- by means of a demand draft drawn in favour of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Kurnool, within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of this order and further ordered that if they fails to deposit the compensation amount within the stipulated time, they shall be liable to pay penalty under Section 4(A)3 of the Act.

9. It is against the said order, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the applicant.

10. Heard Sri N. Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M. Karibasaiah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein/applicants.

11. Now, the following points arise for determination:

1. Whether there is any employer and employee relationship between insured and deceased?

2. Whether the Workmen’s Compensation Act applies to a person, who was murdered in an incident occurred during and in the course of employment?

3. Whether the deceased having valid driving license at the time of incident, if so the order of the Commissioner is correc