JUDGMENT :

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (in short the Act) against impugned Order in W.C.No.30/2005, dated 06.01.2008 by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Labour-II Circle, Guntur. (in short, the Commissioner).

2. The appellant herein was the applicant/injured, who laid a claim seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- against the owner and insurance company. The respondent Nos., 1 and 2 herein were the owner and insurance company of the offending vehicle. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred to as arrayed before the learned Commissioner.

3. The claim of the applicant is that he was employed as a cleaner for a monthly salary of Rs.4000/- per month on a mini lorry bearing No. ADD 1962 owned by Opposite Party No.1, for which, Opposite Party No.2 issued a policy covering the risk of the applicant. The applicant sustained injury on 24.03.2005 while he was attending the duty. The Opposite Party No.1, who is the owner of the offending vehicle, did not choose to contest the matter.

4. The Opposite Party No.2/Insurance company filed its counter denying material averments made in the application, inter alia contending that the driver had no valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle, and that no appropriate premium was paid to the vehicle to ply on the road, and as such, the Opposite Party No.1 violated the terms and conditions of the policy therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation.

5. Enquiry before the learned Commissioner: During the enquiry before the learned Commissioner, the applicant was examined as AW.1, who reiterated the contents in the Petition in his chief examination. Apart from examining himself, the applicant also examined the Doctor, who treated him after the accident, as AW.2. Though the owner did not file Counter, he deposed as AW.3 supporting the claim of the applicant. He categorically stated that the vehicle was insured with Opposite Party No.2, and accordingly, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation. The Insurance Company though filed Counter, did not choose to adduce any evidence on their behalf.

6. Finding of learned Commissioner:

a. The learned Commissioner on appreciation of the material and evidence on record opined that the driver possessed valid driving license and the vehicle got insurance policy, which was issued by the Opposite Party No.2.

b. The mini lorry, which is meant for transportation of the goods, cannot carry the passengers.

c. The evidence on record coupled with Ex.A.1 and A.4 would show that seven persons died and many of them sustained injuries.

d. The applicant, who is the cleaner of the vehicle, and the owner clearly violated the terms and conditions of the policy. So, the owner is liable to pay the compensation.

e. Against the claim of the applicant i.e., Rs.3,00,000/-, an amount of Rs.68,730/- was granted as compensation against the owner while exonerating the insurance company.

7. Grounds of Appeal:

Aggrieved by the impugned Order, the applicant preferred the present appeal on the grounds that

i. the learned Commissioner failed to appreciate evidence on record in a proper perspective.

ii. the learned Commissioner ought to have observed that the applicant being a workmen sustained injuries during the course of employment and is entitled to get compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- against the owner as well as the insurance company.

8. Substantial Question of law framed by the Appellant:

i. In case of violation of the conditions of the policy, whether the Opposite Party No.1 i.e., owner of the vehicle, is alone liable to pay the compensation though the Opposite Party No.2 failed to place any evidence in proof of th