JUDGMENT :

V. SUJATHA, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, by the appellant/opposite party No.3 – insurance company, challenging the order dated 23.10.2019 passed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation Act, 1923 and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle-I, Visakhapatnam in E.C.Case No.12 of 2018, whereby the Court below awarded a compensation of Rs.11,16,016/- to the respondent Nos.1 to 3/applicants.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

(a) For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed before the Court below.

(b) The 1^st applicant is the wife of one Chandra Sekhar (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’), who is said to be a workman within the meaning of the Act, employed as ‘painter cum putti fixing skilled worker’ by the 1st opposite party since three years prior to his death by receiving wages of Rs.10,000/- per month in addition to a batta of Rs.50/- per day. The deceased was employed by 1^st opposite party and was supervised by the 2^nd opposite party in building construction work. On 01.11.2017, at about 10.30 a.m., the deceased accidentally fell from 2^nd floor of the building bearing door No.4-70- 12, Lawsonsbay colony, Visakhapatnam, while doing painting work. Immediately, he was shifted to various hospitals for better treatment and while undergoing treatment at Government hospital, Srikakulam, the deceased died on 17.01.2018. It is the case of the claimants that the 2^nd opposite party paid premium to 3^rd opposite party towards insurance for 10 workers vide policy No.1502052717P105614551 which is valid from 17.07.2017 to 16.07.2018. Seeking compensation of Rs.14,97,500/-, the claimants filed a petition before the Commissioner.

(c) The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have filed a common counter affidavit admitting the facts stated by the claimants and stated that the deceased was a workman and that the 2^nd opposite party obtained a policy from the 3^rd opposite policy for 10 workers which was in force as on the date of incident. When the 2^nd opposite party addressed a letter to the 3^rd opposite party on 24.01.2018 for settlement of claim, the 3^rd opposite party failed to settle the compensation as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, requested a direction to the 3^rd opposite party to pay compensation to the claimants under Employees Compensation Act, 1923.

(d) The 3^rd opposite party disputed the material averments of the applicants and denied that the deceased is a workman within its meaning. It further denied the fact that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him as on the date of incident. It further contended that in the absence of FIR, Panchanam, postmortem certificate, the claim application itself is not maintainable. It further stated that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the 2^nd opposite party shall pay the compensation to the eligible dependents after which, the 3^rd opposite party will indemnify the same as per eligibility. Thus, it prayed the Commissioner to dismiss the application.

(d) After considering the submissions of either side, the Court below framed the following points for consideration:

1. Whether or not the deceased Mr. Lakineni Chandra Shekhar Rao met with an accident on 01-11-2017 and died during the course and out of his employment in the employment of the OP-1 and working under control and supervision of OP-2 as Painter cum Putty fixing worker?

2. If yes, who are liable to pay compensation to the Applicant’s? And;

3. What is the amount of compensation entitled by the Applicant’s?

(e) During the course of trial, A.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A1 to A18 were marked on behalf of the applicants; no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of opposite party No.1, however, O.P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B7 were marked on behalf of opposite party Nos.2 and 3. Exs.X1 to X6 were also marked.

(f) The Court below, relying upon the evi