JUDGMENT :

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Anantapur (hereinafter called as the ‘Commissioner’) in W.C.Case No.15 of 2003 dated 30.11.2009.

2. The insurer of the Tractor-Trailor bearing No.AP 02 U 2975 and 2976 belonging to the 2nd respondent herein is the appellant. The 1st respondent herein is the injured/applicant.

3. According to the respondent No.1/applicant, in the application before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation at Anantapur, he was a workman employed by a contractor. On 05.04.2001, the applicant went to coolie work along with other coolies in the above tractor-trailor for loading and unloading of 20 mm metal. At about 10.00 a.m., near Murali Stone Crush Unit, due to the rash and negligent driving of driver, the tractor-trailor was turned turtle to its right side. Due to the said accident, the applicant was sustained grievous injuries i.e., (1). An abrasion of ½” X ½” over nose bleeding present, (2).An abrasion of 1” x 1” over right cheek, bleeding present; and (3).Pain and tenderness over left thigh and public region and pelvis with both hips fracture of right interior public ramus present. The Doctor opined that the injuries 1 and 2 are simple and injury No.3 is grievous in nature. He spent Rs.20,000/- for treatment and he became permanently disabled. On his complaint, a case was also registered against the driver of the said vehicle. Contending that the applicant sustained the injuries during and in the course of employment, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- was claimed by him against the respondent No.1 and the appellant herein.

4. Pending the proceedings before the Commissioner, since respondent No.1 herein died, his legal representatives were brought on record as respondent Nos.3 to 5 therein.

5. Counter was filed by the respondent Nos.3 to 5 denying the averments made in the application stating that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver; the petitioner was employed by the contractor and the said contractor was not added as a party to this case and hence, they are not liable to pay the compensation; and that the claim made by the petitioner is excessive, arbitrary. On the date of accident, the vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent/appellant and the insurance policy was in force. Hence, the 2nd respondent being the insurer of the tractor-trailor, is liable to pay compensation and prayed to dismiss the application.

6. The appellant herein filed its counter that most of the averments mentioned in the application were denied and mainly contending that the application is silent about the vehicle involved in the accident, owner of the vehicle and its insurer and without vehicular particulars of the alleged vehicle, it cannot locate the origin of the policy and has to file a detailed counter and requested to reject the application.

7. The applicant filed a memo before the authority stating that by mistake he had not mentioned crime vehicle and permit him to amend the petition and prayed to add the vehicle number as AP 02 U 2975 and 2976. The said application was allowed.

8. In pursuance of allowing of the said amendment petition, the appellant herein filed an additional counter stating that the vehicle is not at all insured and there is no contractual liability between respondent No.1 and the appellant to indemnify the liability. Hence, the respondent company is not liable to pay any compensation. The driver of the vehicle did not possess any valid driving license.

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

1. Whether the applicant was a workman as per the provisions of the W.C.Act, 1923 and he met with the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting into disability and loss of earning capacity ?

2. What is the age of the injured applicant at the time of accident ?

3. What were the wages paid to the