JUDGMENT:

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the impugned order dated 08.09.2003 in W.C.No.30 of 2002 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation-

cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ongole.

2. The appellant herein is the Opposite Party No.2. The respondents 1 to 4 herein are the applicants and Opposite Party No.1 before the learned Commissioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as they are arrayed before the learned Commissioner.

3. The applicants filed W.C. claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- from Opposite Parties 1 and 2 for the death of deceased workman Shaik Hussain, who was working as driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-27-U-5055 belonging to Opposite Party No.1. On 07.03.2002 at about 7.30 P.M., the deceased, while he was on duty in the lorry, proceeding from Cumbum to Vellore, met with an accident on 08.03.2002 at about 4.30A.M., near Bapanakunta, Cuddapah District and received injuries. The cleaner Mandal Ramudu also received injuries. The driver succumbed to the injuries on admission in Rayachoti Hospital at 8.15.A.M. The deceased was aged about 34 years. Since the accident took place arising out of and in the course of his employment, they sought for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- from the opposite parties.

4. While Opposite Party No.1 did not choose to contest the case, the Opposite Party No.2-insurance company filed its counter denying the allegations made in the case on the involvement of the vehicle in the accident, the existence of valid and effective driving licence of the driver of the vehicle, the existence of the valid insurance policy at the time of accident and ultimately, the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation.

5. Having heard both the counsel and on appreciation of evidence on record, learned Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.3,12,833/- payable by opposite parties to the applicants.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the Opposite Party No.2 preferred the present appeal, on the ground that the learned Commissioner failed to see that the applicants have not established the age, wage and employment of the deceased, that the deceased was not driving the lorry at the time of accident and that the deceased was not an employee of the Opposite Party No.1 and they admitted that they have no record to show age, wage and occupation of deceased.

7. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to refer to Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, which reads as under:

“30. Appeals.-

(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely:

(a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half- monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum;

[(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty Under Section 4A;]

(b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half-

monthly payment;

(c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant;

(d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of Sub-

section (2) of Section 12;

or (e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions:

Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in Clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees ….”

8. A perusal of Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act referred above makes it clear that the scope of Section 30 of the Act for entertaining the appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner is very limited and is restricted to those that are provided in the clauses (a) to (e). Further, it clearly prov