JUDGMENT :

V. Sujatha, J.

Since both the appeals arise out of the same order, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of them by way of this common order.

2. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.162 and 564 are filed by the Insurance Companies/opposite party Nos.3 and 4 respectively, challenging the Order, dated 08.04.2019 passed in W.C.No.10 of 2012 on the file of the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle-I, Visakhapatnam District (for brevity “the Tribunal”).

3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

4. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicants, are as follows:

a) The deceased was employed as a Driver under opposite party Nos.1 and 2 on TATA HMV bearing No.AP 31 TA 4199 and was receiving wages of Rs.10,000/- per month. On 14.08.2011 at about 4.00 p.m., with the permission of opposite party Nos.1 and 2, the deceased went to the hospital along with his relative, namely Krishna, on a Pulsar motorcycle bearing No.AP 31 BP 4199 belonging to opposite party No.1, with instructions to return by 5.00 p.m. to attend his assigned duty of transporting load to Visakhapatnam. While returning from the hospital at about 4.30 p.m., and upon reaching Pineapple Colony, some stray dogs suddenly crossed the road, as a result of which the deceased lost control over the vehicle and the motorcycle overturned. In the said accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries all over his body and died on the spot. He was immediately shifted to King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam, where the doctors declared him dead. The accident was reported to the Station House Officer, Gopalapatnam Police Station, and a case in Crime No.319 of 2011 was registered under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC.

(b) It is further stated that the deceased was drawing wages of Rs.10,000/- per month. Opposite party No.1 is the owner of the motorcycle involved in the accident, while opposite party No.2 is the employer under whom the deceased was working as a Driver of the lorry. Opposite party No.3 is the insurer of the two-wheeler. According to the applicants, the accident occurred during and in the course of employment and, therefore, opposite party Nos.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, since insurance policy bearing No.433200/31/2009/3835 was in force as on the date of the accident. Hence, the claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- together with interest at 18% per annum.

5. Opposite party No.1 filed a counter, which was adopted by opposite party No.2, admitting the employment of the deceased under opposite party No.1 on contractual basis. Opposite party No.1 admitted that the deceased was a workman within the meaning of the Act and also admitted the occurrence of the accident. It was further stated that the deceased, with prior permission, had gone on the motorcycle bearing No.AP 31 BP 4199 to bring spare parts and met with the accident. It was also stated that the said vehicle was insured with opposite party No.3 and, therefore, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are not liable to pay compensation. Accordingly, they sought dismissal of the claim against them and requested that appropriate orders be passed directing opposite party Nos.3 and 4 to pay the compensation, if any, under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.

6. Opposite party No.3 filed a counter denying the material averments made in the claim petition. It denied the employment of the deceased under opposite party No.1, denied that the deceased was a workman within the meaning of the Act, denied the occurrence and manner of the accident, and also denied that the accident arose out of and during the course of employment. It further denied the wages claimed by the applicants. Opposite party No.3 further contended that under Section 158 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it was the duty of the police and the Registering Authority to furnish accident information to the