The court emphasized the requirement of a valid driving license, the existence of an employer-employee relationship, and the determination of the deceased's income for compensation purposes under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

JUDGMENT :

Since the issue involved in both the appeals is one and the same and they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this common judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as arrayed before the Court below.

3. C.M.A.No.1068 of 2004 is filed by the claimants 1 and 2, who are the parents of deceased-Aaladhi Shankar, stating that their son was engaged by the 1st respondent-owner of the vehicle, as driver and he went to duty on 17.7.2002 for cultivating the land of the 1st respondent and at about 11.00 a.m, the tractor slipped and turned turtle, due to which, their son received grievous injuries and died on the spot. Hence, they have filed W.C.No.225 of 2002 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of their son.

4. The first respondent, who is the owner of the said vehicle, filed counter-affidavit stating that the deceased met with an accident while discharging the duties as driver in his agricultural land and he paid Rs.5,000/- p.m. towards salary and Rs.50/- as batta and that the said vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company and it was in force as on the date of accident. The second respondent-Insurance Company also filed counter by resisting the claim made by the claimants, denied the allegations including the employment of the deceased, apart from the age, and income.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, framed the following issues.

1. Whether the deceased was a workman within the meaning of the Act and whether he died during the course of employment under opposite party No.1?

2. If so, what is the monthly wages drawn by the deceased workman?

3. What was the age of the workman at the time of his death?

4. Whether the applicants are entitled to compensation? If so, to what extent?.

6. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants the 2nd claimant was examined as PW.1 and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, owner of the vehicle was examined as RW1 and Assistant Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company was examined as RW2 and no documents were marked on their behalf.

7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, awarded a sum of Rs.2,80,295/-as compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company preferred CMA No.1203 of 2011 and the claimants filed C.M.A.No.1068 of 2004 seeking enhancement of compensation.

8. Now, the point for consideration is:

(1) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, is excessive?

(2) To what extent, the claimants are entitled to?

9. POINT Nos.1 & 2:

The deceased was engaged as driver by the 1st respondent and on 17.07.2002, while driving the tractor bearing No.AP 25 H 2401 for cultivating the land of the 1st respondent, the tractor slipped and turned turtle on the deceased, due to which, the deceased received grievous injuries and died on the spot. The mother of the deceased, who was examined as PW1, in her evidence deposed that her son was having valid driving licence to drive the Tractor and he died during the course of his employment. The owner of the tractor, who was examined as RW1, in his evidence deposed that the deceased was his driver and he was holding valid driving licence and he paid Rs.5,000/- per month as salary and Rs.50/- per day as batta. In his cross-examination, RW1 stated that he has not filed appointment letter showing that he employed the deceased as Driver on his tractor, but he simply stated that he paid Rs.5,000/- as salary per month and he denied the suggestion that there is no relationship between him and the driver as employer and employee.

10. The Insurance Company examined the Assistant Divisional Manager and he stated that the insured claimed for own damage for his vehicle, but it was repudiated as the driving licence was