JUDGMENT:

The Appellant herein filed this Appeal under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, against the Order and Decree dated 30.06.2012 passed in W.C.No.15 of 2010 by the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Narsipatnam, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted a total compensation of Rs.3,55,023/- for the death of the deceased in the accident that was occurred on

30.12.2009.

2. The appellants herein are the applicants; respondents herein are the opposite parties before the learned Tribunal. 3. The appellants herein have filed a claim petition before the Court below alleging that on 30.12.2009 the deceased workman as a cleaner in the lorry bearing No. AP 28 W 135, during the course of his employment, the driver of the lorry was proceeding from Kakinada side towards Pendurthi side, when the said lorry reached Jodugullu road turning Sabbavaram Mandal at about 6.00 a.m lost control of the said lorry and dashed an opposite coming lorry, as a result of which the cleaner of the said lorry died instantaneously with grievous

2 Dr.KMR, J injuries along with driver. A case in Crime No.228 of 2009 was registered by Sabbaravam Police Station under Section 304-A, 338 of IPC. Therefore, the appellants approached the respondents with a request to pay compensation, but in vain. Hence he approached the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Narsipatnam.

4. The respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte. The 3rd respondent has filed counter before the learned Tribunal stating that there is no relationship between employee and employer with the respondents 1 and 2 and also denied the age, wages of the deceased and cause of death of the deceased. Therefore the 3rd respondent is not liable to indemnify the liability of the respondents 1 and 2 herein and that the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Basing on the pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed the following issues viz., 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 Dr.KMR, J

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

6. During the course of trial, the 1st appellant is examined himself as AW-1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A4 and on behalf of the 3rd respondent, RW-1 was examined and got marked documents as Ex.B1 to B6.

7. The learned Tribunal, after hearing on both sides passed an order holding that the respondents 1 to 3 herein are jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 3,55,023/- to the appellants. Assailing the same, the present C.M.A came to be filed by the appellants for enhancement of compensation.

8. Heard Mr. Jayanti S.C.Sekhar, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Ms.S.Pranathi, learned Standing Counsel for the

3rd respondent.

9. During hearing learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the learned Tribunal ought to have seen that the deceased earning capacity while awarding compensation. The learned tribunal failed to grant compensation properly and also not granted future earnings of the deceased and failed to

4 Dr.KMR, J observe Ex.A1 to A4. Therefore, the learned Tribunal granted compensation on mere surmises and not on the rational principles of law. Therefore requested to consider the said facts and allow the appeal by relying on the substantial question of law, which reads as:

a. Whether the court below observed Ex.A1 to A4 are not?

b. Whether the respondents file a petition for summoning of witness from RTA Office Authorities or not?

c. Whether the Insurance Company verified the Crimie No.228 of 2009 or not?

d. If the Insurance Company issued policy and also the Insurance Company authorities mentioned all the contents in their court or