Both these appeals are directed against the common Judgment and Award dated 31.05.2010, passed in WCA. NF.No.22/2009 and 23/2009, on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s compensation, Koppal. In these appeals, the insurance company is challenging the liability fastened on it by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation (for brevity, ‘the Commissioner’) in respect of claims made by two injured-claimants, in the proceedings initiated U/S. 22 of the Workmen’s Act (for brevity, referred to as ‘the Act’). Since, both these appeals arise out of the common Judgment, they are heard and taken together for disposal.

2. Briefly stated, the Respondent No.1 in both the appeals filed separate claim petition before the Commissioner, contending that they were working as Hamalis in the lorry bearing registration No. KA-35/A-869 belonging to 2nd respondent and they were getting daily wages of Rs.150/. On 02.09.2008 at about 3.45 p.m., as per the direction by the owner of the vehicle, they were proceeding/travelling in the said lorry to unload ironore near DMS plot situated in forest area. Due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver, the vehicle turtled and both of them suffered grievous injuries. The accident occurred out of and during the course of their employment. Immediately they were shifted to Koodligi hospital, thereafter they took treatment with private medical practitioner. Prior to the accident they were healthy and because of the accident, they are not in a position to discharge their coolie work.

3. The claim was contested by the insurance company, while the owner of the vehicle remained exparte. The Commissioner, on over all consideration of the evidence adduced before him, allowed the claim petitions filed by the claimants and awarded compensation of Rs.74,872/- in respect of Sri. Shivamurthy and Rs.73,386/- in respect of G. Suresh respectively.

4. Shri. G.N. Raichur, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurer, at the first instance, challenges the liability fastened on the insurer on the ground that the insured has not paid the additional/extra premium to cover the risk of the Hamalies and hence, the Commissioner was not justified in fastening the liability on the insurer. Secondly, he contended that the evidence of the Doctor is insufficient, as regards the percentage of functional disability suffered by the claimants and wherefore, as per the Judgment of this Court rendered in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Murali and others (2010 Kant. M.A.C. 152 (kant), the compensation amount awarded was on the higher side. That apart, the Doctor who treated the injured-workmen is not examined and hence, the physical disability assessed by the Commissioner at 20% in respect of each of the claimant is exorbitant. Looking to the medical evidence that the claimants have suffered injuries to elbow joint i.e., dislocation of shoulder joint, the functional physical disability arrived at by the Commissioner at 20% is disproportionate and he requests the Court to reduce compensation reasonably.

5. In reply, Shri. Hanumanthareddy Sahukar, learned counsel for the 1st respondents-claimants in both the appeals vehemently submits that the vehicle involved in the accident is a goods lorry and as per Rule-100 r/w. 226 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, it is permissible for the coolies or employees not exceeding seven persons to travel in a goods vehicle during the course of their employment and they are compulsorily covered as required U/S. 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988. In the case on hand, the insurer has collected premium in respect of driver and one employee. The claims before the Commissioner was in respect of only two employees. The contention urged by the insurer challenging the statutory liability is beyond the scope of Section-30 of the Act. Section-30 of the Act, controls the grounds that may be urged in an appeal challenging the award of compen