The deceased, as a loading and unloading worker, is covered under the amended definition of 'third party' in the Motor Vehicles Act, thus the insurance company is liable for compensation.

JUDGMENT

The present appeal is filed against the order dated 17.12.2011 in W.C.No.19 of 2010 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Narsipatnam.

2. Facts leading to this appeal are as under:

One Bodapati Nookaraju (herein after referred to as ‘deceased’) was working as loading and unloading labour in the Tractor and trailer bearing registration Nos. AP 31 AN 9428 and AP 31 Y 5310 respectively belonging to O.P.No.1 and used to earn Rs.4,500/- per month. On 18.10.2009 in the morning, the said Bodapati Nookaraju (deceased) went to Gotivada village on the tractor/trailer from G.Koduru for unloading stones. After unloading the load, while returning to G.Koduru, the said tractor and trailer met with an accident near Nagaram village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District due to negligence of the driver.

3. In the accident, the vehicle turned turtle and due to the impact, the deceased and one Madagala Appalanaidu suffered grievous injuries while other labour in the vehicle suffered simple injuries. Immediately, the deceased and Madagala Appalanaidu were shifted to Area Hospital, Narsipatnam and were further shifted to K.G.H, Visakhapatnam on 19.10.2009. On 25.10.2009, the deceased succumbed to his injuries while taking treatment. The other injured Madagala Appalanaidu also died on 04.11.2009.

4. As the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family, the application for compensation was filed by the wife, children and parents seeking compensation of Rs.5,71,833/-. It was stated that, the vehicle was insured with O.P.No.2 vide policy No.10003/31/10/003823, which was valid from 09.04.2009 to 08.04.2010.

5. O.P.No.1/Employer filed counter admitting that the deceased was working as loading and unloading labour in the tractor and trailer and used to earn Rs.4,500/- per month and that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver.

6. O.P.No.2/insurance company filed its counter disputing the liability on the ground that the vehicle was carrying passengers as on the date of the accident contrary to the contractual clause and that no premium was paid by O.P.No.1 to cover the risk of any other person other than the driver.

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

1. Whether the deceased is a workman under the provisions of W.C.Act and there exists employee- employer relation and death aroused out of and in the course of employment?

2. What is the age and Wage of the deceased at the time of the accident?

3. Whether the applicant is entitled for any amount of compensation? If so what amount of compensation the applicants are entitled and who are liable to pay compensation?

8. In the course of evidence, the claimant No.1 i.e. wife was examined herself as A.W.1 and one Ayyarapu Naganna, an eyewitness to the accident was examined as A.W.2. O.P.No.1 was also examined himself as R.W.1 and he reiterated his submissions, averments in the counter. O.P.No.2 examined one B.A.L.N. Hari Krishna, Legal Officer as R.W.2. The claimants marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 i.e. FIR dated 18.10.2009, Postmortem Certificate, Inquest Report, MVI Report and Xerox Copy of Driving License of the Driver respectively. R.W.2 got marked insurance policy as Ex.B1 and Exs.X.1 to Ex.4 Letter of Transport Department dated 28.09.2011, Form 24 B-Register of Motor Vehicle of Tractor and Trailer issued and Goods carrier permit issued by RTA on 30.03.2007.

9. The Commissioner, taking into the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and that the O.P.Nos.1 and 2 were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation by taking the monthly wages at the rate of Rs.3,648/- per month as per G.O.Ms.No.83 dated 22.11.2006 and awarded compensation of Rs.3,86,304/-. Questioning the said order, the present appeal is filed.

10. Heard Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri G.Venkata Reddy and A.K.Narasimha Rao, le