The insurance policy under the Workmen’s Compensation Act covers employees, including second drivers, affirming their entitlement to compensation for work-related injuries.

JUDGMENT :

NYAPATHY VIJAY, J.

1. The present C.M.A is filed under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act , 1923 questioning the Order dated 30.06.2005 in W.C.No.126 of 2004 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Cuddapah, Cuddapah 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:-One N. Mahaboob Basha (hereinafter referred to as “Claimant”)was working as second driver/relief driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-02-V-3363 belonging to O.P.No.1 having National permit. On 08.09.2003, the Claimant as per the instructions of O.P.No.1/owner loaded the lorry with mangoes at Railway Kodur, Cuddapah District to go to Mumbai, which is at a distance of 1200 Kms. While proceeding towards Mumbai, when the lorry reached Malavi Bridge, the lorry was stopped for fuel and air and stationed by the side of the road. While so, another lorry bearing No.MH-12-QA-9520, which was coming from the back side, hit the lorry of O.P.No.1 due to rash and negligent driving of that lorry driver and as a result, the Claimant received fracture injuries to his legs and was admitted in Akshay Medical Foundation Hospital at Lonawala. Later, the Claimant was shifted to Government Hospital, Cuddapah for treatment. In spite of best treatment, the injuries were not cured and the Claimant became permanently disabled.

4. A criminal case was registered vide Cr.No.47 of 2003 by the Lonawala Police Station, Maharashtra State and Charge Sheet was filed by the police to that effect also. As the accident occurred in the course of employment and since the Claimant was being paid monthly wage of Rs.4,000/- per month, compensation was sought for Rs.4,00,000/- from O.P.No.1/owner. As the vehicle was insured with O.P.No.2 vide Policy bearing No.611201/31/03/02639, which was valid from 11.08.2003 to 10.08.2004, O.P.No.2-Insurance Company was arrayed as party-respondent in the claim application.

5. O.P.No.1 i.e. owner filed his counter admitting that the Claimant was working as second driver and also as cleaner. He was driving the lorry long distance from Cuddapah to Mumbai. It was also admitted that the Claimant was being paid monthly wage of Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.100/- per day as batta.

6. O.P.No.2 i.e. Insurance Company filed their counter denying the accident, involvement of the Claimant, the injuries and disability as stated by him.

7. Based on the rival pleadings, the Commissioner framed the following issues for consideration:-

1) Whether the applicant is a workman as per the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act , 1923 and he met with accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting into disability and loss of earning capacity?

2) What was the age of the injured applicant at the time of accident?

3) What was the wages paid to the injured applicant at the time of accident?

4) What is the loss of earning capacity suffered and permanent disability percentage faced by the injured applicant?

5) What is the Quantum of compensation payable to the applicant?

6) Who are liable to pay the Compensation?

8. In the course of evidence, the Claimant was examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.7 i.e. Certified copy of F.I.R, Certified copy of Wound Certificate, Certified copy of Final Report, Office copy of legal notice, Medical Disability Certificate, Xerox copy of Driving License of applicant and Statement of Applicant respectively. In his deposition, the Claimant reiterated the averments in the claim application and requested for compensation as sought for.

9. Dr.G. Venkatasubbaiah was examined as A.W.2. He deposed that the Claimant is having deformity of leg while walking and standing and therefore he is unable to drive the vehicle. It was also deposed that the Claimant was suffering from Chronic Osteomyelitis of left tibia and that there is no permanent cure for this and artificial limb would be inevitable. A.W.2 assessed the d