IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the Commissioner’s findings that the deceased were workmen under the Employees Compensation Act, affirming that appeals are limited to substantial questions of law.

JUDGMENT :

Both these appeals are filed by the appellant - Insurance Company aggrieved by the orders of the learned Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labor-I, T.Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavanam, RTC 'X' Roads, Hyderabad in E.C.No.139 of 2015 and E.C.No.137 of 2015, both dated 13.11.2017.

2. The applicant in E.C.No.139 of 2015 was the adopted son of the deceased Krishna, who worked as a cleaner on an Eicher Van bearing No.AP-07-TB- 2155 under the employment of opposite party No.1 (for short "O.P.1") and sustained injuries in an accident that occurred on 27.05.2015. The applicants in E.C.No.137 of 2015 were the wife, minor son and parents of the deceased Younus, who worked as a driver on the same Eicher Van bearing No.AP-07- TB-2155 under the employment of O.P.1 and sustained injuries in the same accident that occurred on 27.05.2015.

3. The case of the applicants was that on 26.05.2015 one Mr.Raheem, the additional driver of the Eicher Van bearing No.AP-07-TB-2155 started from Gajula Malkapuram Village with a load of Chilly and while proceeding towards Hyderabad on the said vehicle, on the way, stopped the vehicle in front of new Bus Stand on service road of Suryapet Town and called driver Younus over phone to relieve him from duty. Accordingly, driver Younus came to the Bus Stand along with cleaner Krishna and met Mr.Raheem and while they were all together proceeding towards the Eicher Van bearing No.AP-07-TB-2155, in the meantime at about 00:15 hours on 27.05.2015, suddenly a Tempo Traveller bearing No.AP-29-TB-8883 coming from Vijayawada side driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed hit the three persons who were crossing the road, due to which cleaner Krishna died on the spot and the drivers Younus and Raheem sustained severe injuries and were shifted to Area Hospital, Suryapet, where Younus succumbed to injuries. As per the case of the applicants, both the deceased driver and cleaner were proceeding towards the vehicle to relieve the additional driver Mr.Raheem and they died during the course of and out of their employment with Opposite Party No.1. Police of PS Suryapet Town registered a case in Crime No.189 of 2015 under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC against the driver of the Tempo Traveller bearing No.AP-29-TB-8883.

4. The claimants in E.C.No.137 of 2015 claimed compensation of Rs.8.00 lakhs along with interest and costs for the death of the deceased Younus and the claimant in E.C.No.139 of 2015 claimed compensation of Rs.6.00 lakhs for the death of the deceased Krishna in the said accident.

5. The Opposite Party No.1 remained ex-parte. The Opposite Party No.2 (for short "O.P.2") i.e. the Insurance Company filed counter and called for strict proof of the employer and employee relationship between the deceased and O.P.1, the manner of the accident and that the deceased persons died during the course of and out of their employment with O.P.1. The O.P.2 contended that the deceased persons had not commenced their duties and not even boarded the Eicher Van bearing No.AP-07-TB-2155. Even as per the contention of the applicants, they met with the accident prior to commencement of their duty on the said vehicle and the accident took place by another vehicle and the Eicher Van was not involved in the accident. Therefore, O.P.1 alone was liable and O.P.2 was not liable to pay any compensation to the applicants. The O.P.2 further contended that the applications were not maintainable for non-joinder of driver, owner and insurer of the Tempo Traveller bearing No.AP-29-TB-8883.

6. The sole applicant in E.C.No.139 of 2015 was examined as AW.1 and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked on behalf of the applicant in the said case. The applicant No.1 in E.C.No.137 of 2015 was examined as AW.1 and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked on behalf of the applicants in E.C.No.137 of 2015. The Administrative Officer of O.P.2 - Insurance Company was examined as RW.1 in both the cases. Exs.B1 and B2 were marked on beha