JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.03.2013 passed in W.C.No.105 of 2010, on the file of the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-II, Hyderabad (hereinafter be referred as ‘the Commissioner’), the opposite party No.2/Insurance Company filed the present Appeal seeking to set-aside the order passed by the learned Commissioner.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Commissioner.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, who is the husband of the deceased-Smt.S.Ramanamma @ Ravanamma, filed a petition under the provisions of the Employees’ compensation Act, 1923 seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- from the opposite parties 1 & 2 on account of the death of the deceased in an accident that occurred on 10.10.2009. It is stated by the applicant that the deceased used to work as ‘Labourer’ under the employment of Opposite party No.1 on her Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos.AP-27AC- 5351 and AP-27AC-5352 and on 10.10.2009, when the deceased was on duty as Labourer on the said Tractor and Trailer and was proceeding from Thetupeta Village towards Murugamy Village side and when reached the outskirts of Murugamy Village, the driver of the said Tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed. As a result, the Tractor-Trailer turned turtle and the deceased sustained severe injuries on both limbs and multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately, she was shifted to Vijaya Hospital, Ongole, where she underwent treatment as inpatient and was discharged and later, as her condition became very serious, she was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and while undergoing treatment, she died on 12.11.2009. Based on a complaint, Police of Chilkalguda Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.685 of 2009 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The applicant stated that the deceased was being paid wages @ Rs.4,500/- per month and was aged about 45 years as on the date of her death. He also stated that as the said Tractor and Trailer were insured with opposite party No.2 vide policy bearing No.150901/31/09/01/00001449 for the period from 28.08.2009 to 27.08.2010 covering the date of accident, hence, opposite party No.1, being the owner and opposite party No.2, being the Insurance Company, both are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

4. Opposite party No.1, who is the owner of the subject Tractor and Trailer, though received notice, did not appear before the Commissioner nor contested the case. Hence, she was set exparte.

5. Opposite party No.2/Insurance company filed its counter denying all the averments made in the claim application including, employment, wage, batta paid, age, occurrence of the accident and also employer-employee relationship, specifically denied Driving License of driver of the subject Tractor and Trailer at the time of accident and also insurance policy covering the risk of the deceased and further contended that the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and hence, prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

6. In support of his case, the applicant No.1 was examined as AW1. He filed an affidavit in lieu of his chief examination wherein he reiterated the contents made in the claim application and got marked Exs.A1 to A10 on his behalf. Ex.A1 = Ex.A2 is the FIR. Ex.A3 is the inquest report. Ex.A4 is the Death certificate. Exs.A5 & A6 are the copies of RC of Tractor and Trailer. Ex.A7 is the Driving License. Ex.A8 is the Insurance policy. Ex.A9 is the Discharge Summary. Ex.A10 is the Hospital Bill. During his cross-examination by 2nd opposite party/Insurance company, he said that he had not filed any documentary proof to show that the deceased was getting salary of Rs.4,500/- per month. He denied the suggestion that the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation and that he is deposing false.

7. As opposite party No.1 remained exparte, none of the witnesses were examined