JUDGMENT :

(Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.)

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (“The Act“) against the impugned order in W.C.No.27 of 2006, dated 12.10.2009 on the file the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Anantapur (“The Commissioner”).

2. The appellants herein were the claimants, Respondent Nos.,1 and 2 herein were the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 being the employer and insurer before the Commissioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed before the Commissioner.

3. Case of applicants in brief:-

Applicants are the wife and parents of the deceased/V.Srinivasulu, who was 20 years old getting Rs.3,000/- per month under the employment of the Opposite Party No.1 (O.P.No.1). The deceased died on 18.02.2005 at 06:00PM in an accident while travelling in a Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP-02-U-1321, AP-02-U-1322. A crime was registered under Sections 337 , 304-A IPC in Cr.No.18 of 2005 of Urvakonda Police Station. Applicants being dependents of the deceased sought compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- against the opposite parties.

4. Contention of Opposite Party No.1:-

O.P.No.1 being owner of the vehicle and employer to the deceased admits the relationship and death of the deceased while proceeding in a tractor as a coolie, but denies age and income of the deceased. He would submit that he insured the vehicle with Opposite Party No.2 (O.P.No.2) and as such opposite party No.2 is liable to pay compensation. He would further submit that the claim is high and excessive and prays for dismissal.

5. Version of Opposite Party No.2:-

O.P.No.2 submits that the deceased was engaged by one Kuchi Narayanappa and not the O.P.No.1, therefore contends that there is no employee and employer relationship, no premium has been paid to cover the risk of the deceased. Injured persons in the same accident filed their claims before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the driver of the offending vehicle had no license. Prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. In Enquiry:-

a. In the light of the rival contentions the following issues have been framed by the Learned Commissioner;

I. Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of the workmen’s compensation Act, 1923 and he met with the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment?

II. What was the age of the deceased workman at the time of accident?

III. What are the wages paid to the deceased workman/eligible wage at the time of accident?

IV. What is the amount of compensation payable to the applicants?

V. Who are liable to pay compensation?

b. Applicant No.1 being the wife of the deceased examined as AW1. Vadde Nagendra who is an eye witness to the occurrence examined as AW2. Ex.A1 to A8 were the documents marked in support of applicant’s case. On behalf of the opposite parties, the Assistant Manager of O.P.No.2 was examined as RW1. Ex.B1 to B4 documents were marked.

c. Finding:-

The Learned Commissioner opined that the applicants failed to establish there exists any relationship of employer and employee between the opposite party No.1 and the deceased. While saying so, without answering the other issues dismissed the claim.

7. Grounds of Appeal:-

Feeling dissatisfied with the order impugned, applicants preferred this Appeal on the grounds;

a. The Learned Commissioner conveniently ignored though there is ample material on record to prove the relation