IMPORTANT POINT
The court modified the interest rate on compensation to 12% per annum from the date of the accident, affirming the Commissioner's findings on disability.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. Priyadarsini, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.06.2012 passed in W.C.No.41 of 2004 NF, on the file of the learned Commissioner for Employees’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad (for short, ‘the Commissioner’), the Applicant therein filed the present Appeal seeking to modify the order awarded by the learned Commissioner by enhancing the compensation amount.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Commissioner.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant filed a claim application under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, ‘the Act’) seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest on account of the injuries sustained by him in an accident that occurred on 22.02.2002. It is stated by the applicant that he used to work as ‘Labour’ under the employment of opposite party No.1 on his Tractor bearing No.ATJ1620 and Trolley bearing No.AP-25B-3835. On 22.02.2002, when he was proceeding as Labour along with other labours in Trolley bearing No.AP-25B-3835 towed to the Tractor bearing No.AT-J-1620 under the instructions of opposite party No.1 from Kalpal Thanda to Bhaiorapoor Thanda, on the way at about 8.00 a.m., the driver of the said Tractor drove it in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed due to which the tractor and trolley turned turtle culminating into the accident. As a result, the applicant along with other labourers sustained injuries and the applicant sustained fracture injuries on pelvis superior public ramus right side, injuries on shoulder, head, hands, legs, back, chest and other parts of the body. Immediately, the applicant was shifted to Hospital, thereafter took treatment under private doctors. Due to the said injuries, the applicant became permanently disabled and was removed from employment by his employer. Based on a complaint, P.S., Nizamabad Rural, registered a case in Crime No.34 of 2002 under Sections 337 and 338 IPC and filed charge sheet under Section 338 IPC. The applicant further stated that at the time of accident, he was aged 33 years and was being paid salary of Rs.4,000/- per month and as the subject Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos. ATJ 1620 and AP-25B-3835 were insured with opposite party No.2 and the insurance was subsisting at the time of accident, hence, opposite party No.1- owner of the subject Tractor and Trailer and opposite party No.2, who is the insurer, both are liable to pay compensation to the applicant.

4. Opposite party No.1, who is the owner of the subject Tractor and Trailer, filed his written statement and admitted the employment of the applicant as labourer working under him. He also stated that after the accident, due to the disability, the applicant was not attending to his duties and further stated that the compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and as the subject Tractor and Trailer were insured with opposite party No.2 vide insurance cover note No.38268 valid from 13.09.2001 to 12.09.2002, hence, opposite party No.2 alone is liable to pay compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim made against him.

5. Opposite party No.2 filed its written statement by denying the employment of the applicant as labourer under opposite party No.1 on his Tractor bearing No.ATJ 1620 and Trolley bearing No.AP-25B-3835, age, wages paid to the applicant, employee-employer relationship and contended that neither the applicant nor the opposite party No.1 informed about the accident . It is also contended by opposite party No.2 that on verification of the insurance particulars, it was found that only Tractor was insured with them vide policy bearing No.551302/2001/6703218 valid from 13.09.2001 to 12.09.2002 and no premium was paid to cover the risk of labourers. It is further contended that the driver was not having valid driving license to drive the vehicle and the vehicle was not road worthy and lacks fitness certificate and that the amount of compensa