JUDGMENT :

The first respondent herein who is claimant in W.C.No31 of 2011 filed a claim petition seeking the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) under Section 4 of the Workmen Compensation Act, before the Authority under Workmen’s Compensation Act, Visakhapatnam and Deputy Commission of Labour Visakhapatnam.

2. As per the averments in the claim petition, the claimant climbed the electric pole No.54/45/1 situated at Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam, and accidentally fallen from the electric pole due to electric shock, resultantly the claimant sustained fracture of left forearm radius and left hip and also sustained injuries all over the body. Initially he was shifted to private hospital, Gopalpatnam and later he was shifted to K.G.H., Visakhapatnam, for better treatment and accident was reported in Gopalpatnam Police Station on 01.03.2006 on which date the accident was occurred and the disability was assessed by the District Medical Board, Visakhapatnam, to an extent of 40% which is permanent in nature. The said claim application was filed in delay and a delay condone petition was filed and the same was condoned and main case was taken up by the Commissioner on to the file.

3. The general denial was made by the employer. It is asserted and contended by the employer/opposite party no.1 that the insurer/opposite party no.3 to pay any compensation to the claimant and he is not at all responsible for any payment of compensation to the claimant.

4. The insurance company who is arrayed as Opposite Party No.3 filed counter affidavit and denied all the averments made in the claim petition and also contended that there is a delay in filing the petition is 1608 days and not 1150 days. Opposite Party No.3 further contended that the policy provided is a Group Personal Accidental Policy where the sum insured amount shown against the name of the claimant is Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) only and if any amount in excess to the said amount that the opposite party no.1& 2 are liable to pay to the claimant, as the policy is not a workmen compensation policy but a Group Personal Accidental Policy, which is limited to Rs.1,00,000/- only.

5. On the above said contentions, the Commissioner has framed 4 issues and the 4th issue is relevant for the purpose of this appeal is that “what amount of compensation, the applicant is entitled to receive and who has to pay”. After the annunciation of both oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, the Commissioner has directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,19,098/- (Rupees one lakh nineteen thousand and ninety eight only) by fixing the liability jointly and severally against the insured and insurer.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal came to be filed by the Insurance Company who is opposite party No.3 before the Commissioner. On the following grounds: that the Commissioner grossly erred in not looking into section 14 of the Workmen Compensation Act, which clarifies that the insurer’s direct role comes into play only when the insured turns insolvent and further contended that the Workmen Compensation Act is not applicable and the insurer is liable to pay compensation to the third party by virtue of Section 149 of Motor Vehicle Act under the policy the insurance company is liable only to reimburse to the insured. He relied on the judgment in a case United India Fire and General Insurance Company Limited vs. Joseph Mariam and another for the proposition of application of Section-14 of the Workmen Compensation Act.

7. The learned counsel for the Claimant would rely on the judgment in Branch Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Karimnagar Vs. Shaik. Madar and others, 2010 (1) ALD 90, the appellate court shall ordinarily not to interfere with the finding of the fact of the authority unless any substantial question of law is involved. In the said case, it is the contention of the employer that the deceased is a private electrician attended to repair of sign boards of appellant