The deceased, as a Hamali, is considered a workman under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and the insurance company is liable for compensation as he falls under the definition of 'third party'.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present C.M.A is filed under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 questioning the Order dated 12.11.2009 in W.C.No.12 of 2005 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & Deputy Commissioner of Labour (FAC), Anantapur, Anantapur District.

2. The O.P.No.2-Insurance Company is the Appellant herein.

3. The facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as follows:-

The Claimants are the wife, children and parents of one B. Ramanjaneyulu (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’). The deceased was employed under O.P.No.1 as Hamali in his Tractor & Trailer bearing Nos.AP-02-K-1278 & 1279. The deceased was being paid Rs.4,500/- per month by way of his avocation. The Tractor & Trailer was being used to carry gravel from hillock situated in Ramapuram Village to the surrounding work spot where gravel was required. The practice was that the driver of the O.P.No.1/owner used to collect coolies from Challavaripalli and Ramapuram Villages etc. and used to go to hillock for chipping the gravel and loading it on the Tractor and Trailer for unloading the same at the required spot.

4. While so, on 24.08.2004, the deceased along with other co-workers boarded the Trailer and while the vehicle was proceeding towards hillock there was a sudden jerk in the movement of the vehicle, the deceased fell down and the wheel of the Trailer ran over him causing grievous injuries. The deceased was immediately shifted to a private Doctor at Narpala, where he was declared dead. As the deceased died in the course of employment, the compensation was sought from O.P.No.1. A criminal case in Cr.No.35 of 2004 was registered by Narpala P.S., under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the tractor. Since the vehicle was insured with O.P.No.2-Insurance Company vide policy bearing No.051004/47/03/00541, the O.P.No.2-Insurance Company was arrayed as O.P.No.2 in the claim application.

5. O.P.No.1/owner filed his counter admitting to the accident and that the deceased was working as Hamali under him, but denied the wages of Rs.4,000/- per month. It was also pleaded by O.P.No.1/owner in his counter that the vehicle was insured with O.P.No.2-Insurance Company and the O.P.No.2 alone is liable to pay compensation.

6. O.P.No.2-Insurance Company filed its counter denying the claim by disputing the manner of occurrence of accident, wages, the age of the deceased and the jural relationship between the deceased and O.P.No.1/owner as well as the license of the driver of the tractor. It was also pleaded that the deceased was working as a stone cutter but not as a Hamali and that the deceased was negligently standing in between the tractor and trailer connecting with the iron rod, the deceased fell under the Trailer on account of jerking, which resulted in the death. As the deceased was negligently standing in the trailer, no liability can be fastened on the O.P.No.2-Insurance Company.

7. On the basis of respective pleadings, the Commissioner framed the following issues:-

1) Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and he met the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting in to death?

2) Relationship of employee-employer between driver and Opposite Party-1?

3) What was the age of the deceased-workman at the time of accident?

4) What were the wages paid to the deceased at the time of accident?

5) The legal heirs of the deceased workman.

6) What is the amount of compensation payable to the deceased?

7) Who are liable to pay compensation?

8. In the course of enquiry, the Claimant No.1 i