ORDER:

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the impugned order dated 12.10.2009 in W.C.No.28 of 2006 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ananthapur.

The appellants herein are the claimants and the respondents 1 and 2 herein are the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 before the learned Commissioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as they are arrayed before the learned Commissioner.

The applicants, being the children of deceased V.

Yerramma, filed the W.C. claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from Opposite Parties 1 and 2 for the death of deceased V. Yerramma, who was working as employee of Opposite Party No.1. On 18.02.2005 the deceased Yerramma and others were engaged by the Opposite Party No.1 for the work and they boarded a tractor and trailer bearing No.AP-02-U-1321 and AP-02-U-1322 and at about 6.00P.M., they proceeded from Chinnakowkuntla village to PABR dam to transport mud to the fields of Opposite Party No.1 at Peddikowkuntla village. While the tractor proceeded and reached at 4 KMs, the driver drove the vehicle at a high speed rashly and negligently in a zigzag manner, as a result of which, the trailer turned into the ditches and the workers travelling therein were thrown from the tractor, due to which Yeramma and Sreenivasulu died and other coolies sustained injuries. The deceased Yerramma died during the course of her employment and she was earning Rs.3,000/- per month from the Opposite Party No.1. She was aged about 50 years at the time of accident. The claimants being the children of deceased Yerramma sought for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The Opposite Party No.1 filed his counter admitting the relationship of employer and employee between himself and the deceased Yerramma. He denied the age of the deceased, the liability of payment of compensation and claimed that the compensation is excessive.

The Opposite Party No.2 filed its counter denying the relationship of employer and employee, the age, wage and occupation of the deceased. They stated that the claimants are majors and independent earning members and are not dependents of the deceased Yerramma. Since the Opposite Party No.1 violated the terms of the conditions of policy, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation and that the claim made by the claimants is excessive. Having heard both the counsel and on appreciation of evidence on record, the learned Commissioner dismissed the claim.

Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the claimants preferred the present appeal, on the ground that though there is ample evidence on record to prove the existence of the employer and employee relationship, the learned Commissioner misconstrued that the applicants failed to prove the relationship and thereby the commissioner did not choose to give any findings on toehr issues.

Before proceeding further, it is beneficial to refer Section 2 (1) (d) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which deals with the definition of “dependent”. It reads as under:

"dependent" means any of the following relatives of a deceased workman namely:

(i) a widow a minor legitimate or adopted son an unmarried legitimate or adopted daughter or a widowed mother; and (ii) if wholly dependant on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death a son or a daughter who has attained the age of 18 years and who is infirm;

(iii) if wholly or in part dependant on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death-

(a) a widower (b) a parent other than a widowed mother (c) a minor illegitimate son an unmarried illegitimate daughter or a daughter legitimate or illegitimate or adopted if married and a minor or if widowed and minor (d) a minor brother or an unmarried sister or a widowed sister if a minor (e) a widowed daughter-in-law (f) a minor child of a pre-deceased son (g) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter where no parent of the child is alive or (h) a paternal grandparent if no parent of the wo