The claimant, as a loading worker, is classified as a 'third party' under the amended Motor Vehicles Act, making the insurance company liable for compensation.

JUDGMENT

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Order dated 29.12.2008 in W.C.No.31 of 2006 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa.

2. Facts leading to this appeal are as under:

Peta Ramanamma, W/o P. Ramaiah was working as a coolie under Opposite No.1 for loading and unloding for his tractor and trailer bearing Registration No. AP 04 J 3936 and J 3937 respectively. On the instructions of O.P.No.1, on 05.03.2005 the claimant along with others boarded the said tractor-trailor at Sibyala Pedda Cheruvu for loading and unloading. While the claimant and other coolies were loading the mud into the said tractor, the mud suddenly fell over the claimant and other coolies, as a result of which, the claimant suffered severe injuries and one person died on the spot. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was taken to Government Hospital, Rayachoty and after considering the nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant, she was referred to S.V.R.R. Hospital, Tirupati and she was inpatient there for several days. It was pleaded that the claimant had taken treatment in private hospitals at Kadapa. The claimant further pleaded that due to the injuries, she is not in a position to walk, sit and squat and became disable and cannot do coolie work now. It was stated that a Criminal Case vide Cr.No.28 of 2005 was registered by the Rayachoty Urban PS, Kadapa District for the offence punishable under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. As the vehicle was insured with Opposite No.2/Appellant vide Policy No.611201/31/04/05158, which was valid from 19.01.2005 to 18.01.2006 and the policy was in force at the time of the incident, the Opposite Party No.2 was also arrayed as party respondent. As the claimant was aged about 29 years and earning Rs.3,000/- per month as a coolie and as the injuries suffered by the claimant were grevious in nature and in the course of employment, the application was filed seeking for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.

3. OP No.1/Employer filed Counter Affidavit admitting the jural relationship of employer and employee as well as wage and the accident. It was pleaded that as the vehicle was insured with OP No.2, the O.P.No.2 alone is liable to pay the compensation.

4. The OP No.2/Insurance Company/Appellant filed Counter Affidavit denying the allegations and pleaded that Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation and the accident needs to be substantiated with the FIR, Wound Certificate, Disability Certificate and driving license of the Driver etc., It was also pleaded that as the vehicle was used for transportation of mud and manure from a tank bund from one place to another and the same was being used for agricultural purpose, the insurance company cannot be liable to pay the compensation.

5. Considering the pleadings, the Commissioner framed following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the applicant is a workman as per the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and she met with the accident arising out of and in the course of employment?

2. What is the age of the injured applicant at the time of accident?

3. What were the wages paid to the injured applicant at the time of the accident ?

4. What is the loss of earning capacity suffered and permanent disability percentage faced by the injured applicant ?

5. What is the quantum of compensation payable to the applicant ?

6. Who are liable to pay the compensation to the applicant ?

6. During the course of the evidence, the claimant herself was examined as AW.1 and she reiterated the averments in the claim petition and marked Exs. A.1 to A.3 i.e., FIR, Wound Certificate and Disability Certificate issued by Doctor C. Sanjeevaiah. The Doctor—C.Sanjeevaiah, who had issued the Disability Certificate was examined as AW.2 and in his deposition, he deposed that the claimant had difficulty to stand in view of the shortening of lower limb and malunited fracture of left radius. According to AW.2, the claim