The main legal point established in the judgment is the joint and several liability of the insurance company and the owner of the vehicle to pay compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and the applicability of the Motor Vehicles Act to determine the liability of the insurance company.

ORDER :

1. C.M.A.No.1161 of 2005 is filed by the New India Assurance Company, against the orders of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Mahabubnagar, in W.C.No.22 of 2000 dated 31.12.2004 whereby the Commissioner awarded an amount of Rs.1,99,060/- to the applicant.

2. C.M.A.No.1162 of 2005 is filed by the New India Assurance Company, against the orders of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Mahabubnagar, in W.C.No.21 of 2000 dated 31.12.2004 whereby the Commissioner awarded an amount of Rs.1,51,640/- to the applicant.

3. These cases arise out of the same crime, they are amenable for disposal by way of this common order.

4. In C.M.A.No.1161 of 2005, learned counsel for the appellant disputed the employer-employee relationship between the owner and the deceased and also granting of interest by the Commissioner. He would further contend that the deceased was not a cleaner on the lorry but he was an unauthorized passenger travelling in the vehicle at the time of the accident. In C.M.A.No. 1162 of 2005, learned counsel for the appellant would aver that the owner of the vehicle did not pay any additional premium for the labourers/coolies and it amounts to violation of the conditions of the policy and thus, they are not liable to pay the compensation, but the Commissioner erred in fixing the liability against the Insurance Company.

5. Heard the arguments of both the counsel. Perused the record and the case law cited by both sides.

6. The learned Commissioner observed that the applicant in W.C.No.21 of 2000 was working as a labourer, and the deceased in W.C.No.22 of 2000 was working as a cleaner in lorry bearing No.AP 22 T 7709. The applicant in W.C.No. 21 of 2000 received injuries, when the accident occurred during the course of his employment on 25.03.1999, whereas the cleaner received fatal injuries and died. The owner of the vehicle filed counter admitting the employment and wages of the injured labourer and the deceased cleaner. The lorry was insured with New India Assurance Company Limited. The Commissioner held that the owner of the vehicle and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation in both the cases. The Commissioner directed them to pay compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realisation to be paid within 30 days from date of the order, failing which they shall pay interest at 18% per annum from date of petition, and also penalty under Section 4A of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 in both the cases.

7. It was contended by the Appellants that the F.I.R., Charge sheet and other oral and material evidence, which showed that the injured and the deceased were travelling as passengers in the vehicle, but was not considered by the Commissioner while granting the award.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that in case of breach of terms and conditions of the policy, the company is not liable to pay the compensation. He would further argue that pay and recovery also cannot be ordered under Workmen’s Compensation Act. He would also submit that the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act are not applicable to the workmen’s Compensation Act. But in the case of RITA DEVI V/s. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., (2000) 5 SCC 113, it was held ‘the object of both acts, i.e., the Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmen’s Compensation Act is to provide compensation to the victims of accidents. The only difference between the two enactments is, Workmen compensation act is confined to workmen as defined under the Act, and the relied under the Motor Vehicles Act is available to all the victims of an accident involving a motor vehicle. As per S.167, of the M.V. Act, the claimants are at liberty to claim compensation either under Workmen’s compensation Act or under the Motor Vehicles Act. Both the enactments are beneficial enactments operating in the same field.’ Therefore, the ar