P.G.M. PATIL, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondents.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30.03.2007 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Sub Division No.2, Bijapur in WC No.132/2005.

3. The claimant filed a claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the course of his employment. He has stated in the claim petition that he was working as Hamal in Minidor goods vehicle belonging to respondent No.1 bearing Registration No. KA-28/5806 on 23.05.2005 as per the instructions of his employer first respondent, he was on duty of loading and unloading and when the said vehicle was passing near the garden land of Manohar Indi, on Ukkali-Vijapur road, a tractor trailer bearing No.KA-22-2772-71 came from opposite direction and dashed to the Minidor goods vehicle. Due to the said accident the claimant sustained grievous injuries viz., fracture of Patella and fracture of right knee and also other injuries. He was getting salary of Rs.4,500/- per month and Bhatta of Rs.100/- per day from his employer. He was hale and healthy. Now due to accidental injuries, he is not in a position to do any hard work. Therefore, he claimed compensation of Rs.3,25,000/-.

4. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 appeared before the Commissioner. However, respondent No.2 remained absent and he was placed ex-parte. Respondent No.1 filed written statement admitting that the claimant was under his employment and he is the employer and that he was working as Hamali in his Minidor vehicle on a salary of Rs.2,500/- per month.

5. Respondent No.3 filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. He contended that the claimant was not working as Hamali in the goods vehicle and that he was travelling as unauthorized passenger. The claimant is not an employee of respondent No.1. There is also breach of policy conditions. Further, it is specifically contended that respondent No.3 has not issued insurance policy in the name of respondent No.1 in respect of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the claim petition be dismissed.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has framed issues. The claimant got examined himself as PW.1, and one witness on his behalf as PW.2 and got marked eight documents. Respondent No.3 got examined one witness as RW.1 and got marked the insurance policy as Ex.R.3A. The learned Commissioner after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned judgment awarding compensation of Rs.81,341/- together with interest at 12% p.a. and directed the respondent No.1 to pay the said compensation. The insurer was exonerated.

7. The claimant has filed this appeal challenging the impugned judgment and award on the ground that the Commissioner has awarded meager compensation, he ought to have considered his income at Rs.4,500/- per month as per the Minimum Wages fixed in the Government notification. A coolie or loader and un-loader is permitted to travel in the goods vehicle and therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. The interest awarded by the Commissioner is also on the lower side.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the issue of policy in respect of the offending vehicle is admitted by the insurer. Therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. He further submitted that a Hamali or loader and un-loader is permitted to travel in the goods vehicle and there is a statutory coverage of the risk of two persons in a mini lorry. Therefore, liability may be saddled on the insurer.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurer respondent No.3 herein submitted that the claimant cannot make a third party claim under WC Act. It is necessary for the claimant to prove the jural relationship of employee and employer. The learned counsel further submitted that, the respondent No.2 is the owner of the vehicle