THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA C.M.A.NO.302 OF 2015

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act”), against the order, dated 10.03.2015 passed in W.C.No.122 of 2013 by the Commissioner For Employees’ Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-IV, Hyderabad (herein after referred to as “the Asst. Commissioner of Labour”).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to herein before the Authority.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant had filed a claim-petition under the provisions of the Act, for the death of her son by name Asif Pasha (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) claiming compensation against the employer of the deceased i.e. owner of the Jeep bearing No.AP 22 U 3599 and also against the insurer of the said Jeep, United Indian Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad. It is stated that the deceased was an employee as driver under the employment of opposite party No.1. During the course of employment on 26.11.2007, as per the instructions of 1^st opposite party the deceased was proceeding on the Jeep bearing No. AP 22 U 3599 from Makthal to Narayanpet and when he reached the limits of Thipraspally Village, the driver of one DCM Van was coming from opposite direction and both the jeep and the Van are collided. As a result of which, the deceased had to sustain severe fracture injuries. Immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Area Hospital, Narayanpet and from there he was shifted to Government Hospital, Mahabubnagar, where he died while undergoing treatment.

4. Basing on a complaint, the Police, Utkoor, registered a case in Crime No.55 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 of I.P.C.

5. It is stated that the deceased was aged about 21 years and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and Rs.100/- per day towards batta. It is further stated that in view of the death of the deceased, the applicant lost her son. It is further stated that the accident occurred during the course of employment and as such opposite party No.1 being the employer of the deceased and opposite party No.2 being the insurer of the said Jeep are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation.

6. Opposite Party No.1 did not file the counter. Opposite Party No.2 filed counter denying the averments made in the application and also denied that the applicant is the legal representative of the deceased and also denied that the deceased was an employee within the meaning of the Act. It is specifically contended that there is no employee and employer relationship between the deceased and Opposite Party No.1. It is further denied the employment of the deceased as driver of the Jeep, mode and manner in which the accident occurred, age and income of the deceased. It is specifically contended that the accident did not occur during the course of employment. It is further contended that the deceased was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and there is no valid permit and fitness certificate to show that the said Jeep was road worthy to ply on the road. Further, as Opposite Party No.1 is the father of the deceased there is no employer and employee relationship between them. It is further stated that the compensation claimed is excessive and disproportionate.

7. Opposite Party No.2 also filed additional counter in which it is stated that the claim itself is suspicious as the claim was made with delay of 1068 days and the applicant did not choose to explain the delay in detail with documentary evidence that there is no nexus between the employer and employee relationship between Opposite Party No.1 and the deceased and that the death did not occur in the course of employment. There is no evidence to show that Opposite Party No.1 engaged the deceased as driver, moreover, the deceased was proceeding in the Je