JUDGMENT :

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (in short “The Act”) against the impugned award in W.C.No.22 of 2006, dated 11.09.2008 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa (in short “The Commissioner”).

2. The appellant herein is the O.P. No.2, the respondent No.1 is the applicant and respondent No.2 is the O.P. No.1 respectively before the learned Commissioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as they are arrayed before the Commissioner. During pendency of the appeal, the applicant died, due to which, respondents 3 and 4 being his wife and son were brought on record.

3. Case of the Applicant

a. The case of applicant is that the applicant sustained injuries during the course of employment as driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-02-U-5418 while working under O.P. No.1. On 17.08.2005 at about 09.00PM, while he was proceeding in the lorry on Rayalacheruvu-Tadipatri road in between Vengampeta and Cheemalavagupalli village in a slow and careful manner by taking all traffic precautions, one lorry bearing No.KA-02-E-6599 was stationed on wrong side of the road without signal lights, and on observing it, the applicant applied brakes suddenly in order to avoid major accident, resulting which, the cabin of lorry got damaged and glass pieces pierced into the eyes of the applicant and caused bleeding injury below left eye and thereafter he was shifted to Government Hospital, Tadipatri and from there shifted to Government Hospital, Ananthapur for better treatment, later he was admitted in Government General Hospital, Kurnool and thereafter he was shifted to Dr.Sarojinidevi Eye Hospital, Hyderabad, where he underwent a surgery.

b. In spite of the said treatment, applicant lost his vision to the left eye completely and is unable to drive vehicle. A case was registered by Muchumarri Police as Crime No.47 of 2005 for the offence punishable under Sections 337 and 338 IPC. He used to get Rs.4,000/- per month apart from Rs.100/- per day as batta. The vehicle was insured with O.P. No.2 covering the risk of driver and the policy was in force at the time of accident. Accordingly, he claimed Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident.

Version of the Opposite Parties

4. While the O.P. No.1 was set ex parte, the O.P. No.2 being the insurer of the offending lorry filed its counter denying the averments made in the claim, and putting the applicant in strict proof of the same. The O.P. No.2 denied the injuries sustained in the accident, the manner in which the accident occurred and holding of valid driving of the licence of the applicant.

Enquiry before the Learned Commissioner

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

i. Whether the insured was a workman as per the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and he met with accident arising out of and in course of his employment resulting into injuries?

ii. What was the age of the injured at the time of the accident?

iii. What were the wages paid to the injured at the time of accident?

iv. What is the quantum of compensation payable to the injured person?

v. Who are liable to pay the compensation to the injured person?

6. During the course of enquiry, the applicant was examined as AW.1. Dr. G. S. Ramesh Kumar was examined as AW.2 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked and on behalf of insurance company, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked.

7. After hearing both learned counsel and on appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Commissioner awarded an amount o