JUDGMENT:

The appellant/opposite party No.2/Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Legal Manager has filed this appeal assailing the order dated 15.10.2018 in EC No.17 of 2015, before the Commissioner for Workmen(cid:146)s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-III, T.Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavan, Hyderabad.

2. This application in EC No.17 of 2015 was filed by the dependents of the deceased workman late Sayyed Jahangir Hussain claiming compensation for his death in the course of employment of opposite party No.1 as a driver of auto bearing No.TS 15UA 2108, which was insured with the opposite party No.2. The learned Commissioner for Workmen(cid:146)s Compensation has allowed the said application filed against opposite party Nos.1 and 2 fixing joint and several liability directing to pay an amount of Rs.7,75,651/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of compensation of Rs.7,72,107/- from 15.12.2015 till the date of deposit of the compensation.

Feeling aggrieved by the said orders the opposite party No.2 has filed this appeal.

Brief facts:

3. The applicants are the dependents of the deceased workman, who was working as driver of auto bearing No.TS 15UA 2108, belonging to opposite party No.1, insured with opposite party No.2 on a monthly wages of Rs.8,000/- per month, he was aged 22 years as on the date of accident. The vehicle was insured vide policy No.315000077749, it was valid from 06.12.2014 to 05.12.2015. On the date of accident the deceased was proceeding towards Nallavally from Balanagar at about 10.00 P.M. on reaching near Domadugu Village one tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 27H 2770 and 2771 was coming in opposite direction at high speed dashed the auto driven by the deceased as a result, sustained grievous injuries and died at spot. On this a case in Crime No.193 of 2015 was registered by the police, Jinnaram.

4. On receipt of notices, opposite party No.1 did not contest the matter, he was set ex-parte. The 2nd opposite party insurance company has filed detailed counter denying the relationship of employer-employee between the opposite party No.1 and the deceased workman, the liability, wages, manner of occurrence of the accident alleging that the 2nd party has not received any information about the alleged accident, this case is only filed for compensation, there is no employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the opposite party No.1. In-fact the deceased is son of opposite party No.1, this application is not at all maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the application.

5. During enquiry, on behalf of applicants, applicant No.1 is examined as AW1 in his evidence Exs.A1 to A10 documents are marked. In the cross-examination this witness has stated that opposite party No.1 is her husband, they are residing in the same address, she is having three daughters and one son, the said auto belongs to her husband. She denied the suggestion that the deceased was not authorized to drive the said auto rickshaw. However, she has admitted that she did not file any document to prove the wages and batta paid by the opposite party No.1 to the deceased.

6. Though opposite party No.1 did not chose to resist this application, he is examined as AW2 on behalf of the claimants/applicants and he has filed his evidence affidavit in lieu of chief-examination stating that the deceased is his son, he was working as driver on various other auto rickshaws since 2011 onwards, thereafter he has purchased auto bearing No.TS 15UA 2108 in the year 2018 and requested the deceased to work on his auto as driver and he was paying an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month salary apart from Rs.50/- per day batta. This witness stated that on 14.11.2014 the deceased was performing his duties as auto driver, and while he was returning back to the home, the accident occurred. This witness was cross-examined at length on behalf of insurance company, he has admitted the relationship with the deceas