The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the deceased's status as an employee and the occurrence of his death during the course of employment.

JUDGMENT :

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by United India Insurance Company Limited aggrieved by the Order dated 17.10.2015 passed in F.C.No.10 of 2012 by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ananthapuramu.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are wife and daughter of the deceased filed E.C.No.10 of 2012 claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-, on the account of death of the deceased. Deceased died in an accident occurred on 19.01.2012 due to negligence of driver of TATA van bearing No.AP 07 TU 3194. The deceased was working as Salesman in Pepsi Agency Company of opposite party No.1 on a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-. On 19.01.2012 while the deceased was transporting Pepsi bottles in the subject van, the driver of the vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner near O.D. Cheruvu-Nallamda Road and lost control due to which van turned turtle. As a result, the deceased fell down and died on the spot. The van belongs to opposite party No.1 and it is insured with opposite party No.2. As the deceased died during the course of employment, the present claim is filed.

3. Opposite party No.1 filed counter wherein the facts with regard to employment, salary of the deceased and his death during course of employment are not disputed. It is averred that the crime vehicle was insured with opposite party No.2 and policy is in force on the date of alleged accident. Therefore, opposite party No.2 alone is liable to pay the compensation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

4. Opposite party No.2 filed counter disputing the age, employment, wage of the deceased and his death during course of employment. It is averred that risk of deceased, who is salesman is not covered by the policy as no extra premium has been paid. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, Commissioner framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the deceased was employee as per the provisions of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 and he met with accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting in to death?

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

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

4. What is the amount of compensation payable?

5. Who are liable to pay compensation?

6. On behalf of the applicants, applicant No.1 was examined as AW1 besides examined witness as AW2 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. Assistant Manager of the Insurance Company was examined as RW1 and Ex.B1 is filed through him.

7. After considering the evidence adduced on either side, the Commissioner held that opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.6,07,117/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. from 30.05.2012 till the day of realization besides stamp duty of Rs.1,214/- within thirty days from the date of receipt of said order, failing which penalty shall be paid and further directed the owner of the crime vehicle to pay interest on the compensation amount. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by opposite party No.2.

8. Heard Sri M. Upendra Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, Smt. N. Sasikala, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that crime vehicle was not authorized to carry the deceased. As per Ex.B1, risk of the general employees i.e. salesman of Pepsi company is not covered and the deceased was not working as an employee under the owner of the vehicle. He submits that vehicle is a goods vehicle and no additional premium was paid by the owner of the vehicle seeking coverage of the persons carried in the vehicle. Hence, prays to allow the appeal.

10. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit that additional amount of Rs.25/- was paid. The insurance