THE HON’BLE JUSTI CE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

JUDGMENT

:

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 assailing the order passed in WC.No.4 of 2014, dated 26.09.2016 on the file of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Hyderabad.

2. Appellant is the opposite party No.2. Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 are the applicants, respondent No.4 is the opposite party No.1 in W.C.No.4 of 2014

3.1 Learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party No.2 submits that the learned Commissioner failed to see that respondent Nos.1, 2, 3-applicants failed to establish that the deceased died on 09.05.2013 in a motor vehicle accident during the course of his employment as a driver on lorry bearing No.AP-05-TX-3569 under the employment of Respondent No.4 - opposite party No.1, and they also failed to prove the relationship of the deceased with that of respondent No.4-opposite party No.1 as employee and employer, and that the respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 – applicants failed to produce that the deceased was having a valid driving license as on the date of accident, and they did not file any document to show that they are the legal heirs of the deceased.

The compensation claimed is improper and the parents of the deceased are not made as parties as they are alive which is admitted by AW.1 (respondent No.1 herein).

3.2 Counsel submits the substantial question of law is as under:

A. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 – applicants utterly failed to establish that the deceased died on 09.05.2013 in a motor vehicle accident during the course of his employment as a driver of lorry bearing No.AP 05 TX 3569 under the employment of respondent No.4-opposite party No.1.

B. The evidence adduced by the appellant-opposite party No.2, it has been categorically established that it is a case of violation of policy conditions under Ex.B1 as the respondent No.4-opposite party No.1 has allowed the deceased to drive the lorry without having valid and effective driving license.

C. The learned Commissioner erred in dismissing the WC in limini, as the same was hit by resjudicata under Section 11 of CPC in view of the fact that the respondent Nos.1 to 3- applicants filed another WC No.13 of 2014 for the same relief against the same parties and the same was pending as on the date of passing the order in WC.No.4 of 2014.

D. The learned Commissioner ought to have dismissed WC.No.4 of 2014 on the sole ground of non-joinder of proper and necessary parties i.e., the parents of the deceased, who are also entitled for compensation, along with respondent Nos.1 to 3-applicants.

3.3. Prayed to set aside the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3-applicants submits that the learned Commissioner has appreciated the facts of the case in a proper perspective by taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties coupled with the exhibits thereon and rightly passed order in favour of the applicants, no interference is called for, and prayed to dismiss the Appeal.

5. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material.

6. Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether there is any substantial question of law to be decided in the Appeal, if so?

2. Whether the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Labour-I, Hyderabad, in WC No.4 of 2014 dated 26.09.2016 suffers from any perversity, illegality. If so, does it requires any interference of this court?

7. Respondent No.1-applicant No.1 is the wife, respondent Nos.2 and 3-applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the children of the deceased Rama Krishna. Respondent Nos.1 to 3–applicants filed claim application stating that the deceased was working as driver on lorry bearing No.AP 05 TX 3569 belonging to respondent No.4 – opposite party No.1 since long time, till the date of the accident. On 09.05.2013 at about 4.00 hours while the deceased lorry driver was performing his duties as a driver and while he was proceeding towards Jabalpur with a load of coconuts and when he