JUDGMENT :

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner under Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Guntur (hereinafter called as ‘the Commissioner’), in W.C.Case No.94 of 2009 dated 22.12.2012.

2. The insurer of the Lorry bearing No.AP 16 TT 4399 belonging to the third respondent is the appellant. Respondents No.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased by name Sri Manchala Rama Krishna (hereinafter would be referred as ‘the deceased’).

3. According to the respondent Nos.1 and 2/applicants, in the application before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation at Guntur, the deceased was working as cleaner on a Lorry bearing Registration No.AP 16 TT 4399 belonging to the 3rd respondent herein, the deceased was aged about 20 years on the date of the incident. They further stated that on 25.01.2009, the deceased was on duty as a cleaner on lorry with a load of rice belongs to FCI, the lorry reached to KC Camp, Huzurabad Godown and as it was a holiday on that day, the Godown was not opened and about 02.00 P.M., the deceased went to nearby canal to take bath and to bring water to fill the radiator of the said lorry and the deceased slipped and drowned in the canal and ultimately died. They further stated that the third respondent was paying Rs.4,500/- as salary besides batta. Contending that the deceased died during and in the course of employment of the third respondent and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- was claimed by them against the 3rd respondent and appellant herein.

4. The third respondent before the Commissioner remained exparte.

5. The appellant herein alone filed its counter that most of the averments mentioned in the application were denied and mainly contending that there is no nexus between the employment and death and it was not occurred in the course of his employment and that when he went to the canal for bath the death was occurred due to drowning into the canal. Thereby, it cannot be connected to the employment. It is also contended that even findings of the Commissioner regarding the fact is correct, but making the appellant liable to pay penalty and interest in default of depositing the award amount is not accordance with law. Thus denying its liability, it is stated that even otherwise, the compensation claimed is excessive.

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

1. Whether deceased Manchala Rama Krishna was a workman u/s.2(1)(n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act at the time of his death ? And whether the deceased had died as a result of accident arising out of and in the course of employment ?

2. If so, what is the age and wage of the deceased at the time of his death ?

3.What is the amount of compensation ?

4.Who are liable to pay compensation to the dependants of the deceased ?

7. In the course of enquiry, the 1st applicant was examined himself as A.W.1 and one Korapati Sambasiva Rao, resident of Undavalli Village was examined as A.W.2, who said to be driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP 16 TT 4399. In support of the claim nine (9) documents marked as Exs.A.1 to A.9. On behalf of the appellant/insurer, one M.Veeraiah, Administrative Officer examined as R.W.1 and copy of the policy is marked as Ex.B.1.

8. On the material, the Commissioner held that the deceased died during and in the course of employment of the third respondent and that the liability of the appellant stands in view of subsisting contract of insurance between the third respondent and the appellant under Ex.B.1 policy. Thus, basing on the material, considering the age of the deceased, wages applicable to the cleaner on the date of the incident and applying appropriate factor, the Commissioner arrived at a compensation of Rs.3,59,156/- and directing the third respondent and appellant to deposit the said compensation amount by way of demand draft drawn on any scheduled bank in favour of Joint Commissioner of Labour and the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensa