THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA C.M.A.NO.284 OF 2015

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Opposite Party No.2 under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, against the order, dated 18.03.2015 passed in W.C.No.56 of 2013 by the Commissioner For Employees’ Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-IV, Hyderabad (herein after referred to as “the Authority”).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they arrayed before the Authority as the applicants and opposite party Nos.1 and 2.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants have filed an application under the provisions of the Act, 1923 claiming compensation for the death of one Mohd. Abdul Nabi (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) claiming compensation against the employer of the deceased i.e. owner of the Car bearing No.P 28 TV 3669 and also against the insurer of the said Car, United India 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 12.03.2013 while he was on duty as a driver of the said Car and he had parked the said Car by the side of road at Gachibowli and died in the Car. It is further stated that the deceased was on duty and driving the said vehicle at the relevant time and as the death of the deceased was occurred during the course of his employment the applicants filed the application against the opposite parties. It is further contended that the deceased was being paid wages of Rs.6,000/- per month by the 1st Opposite Party and that he was aged about 35 years at the time of his death. Accordingly, the claimants have sought compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

4. The 1st Opposite Party did not appear before the Commissioner to contest the case. The 2nd Opposite Party filed a counter denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is specifically contended that the deceased was not an "employee" within the meaning of the Act, and denied the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the 1st Opposite Party. It further denied that the death occurred during the course of employment. The 2nd Opposite Party also disputed the age and income of the deceased as stated by the claimants. It was further contended that the deceased did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the alleged accident.

Moreover, the 2nd Opposite Party stated that as per Section 134(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 it is the mandatory duty of the insured (1st Opposite Party) to furnish particulars of the insurance policy, as well as the date, time, and place of the accident, and the details of the injured/deceased. It was contended that the allegations made in the claim petition are only for the purpose of claiming compensation and that the applicants are not entitled to the compensation claimed and prayed to dismiss the application.

5. During the course of enquiry on behalf of applicants A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to 10 were marked and on behalf of 2^nd opposite party, Administrative Officer was examined as R.W.1 and Junior Assistant, Office of the RTA was examined as R.W.2 and Exs.B1 and B2 and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked on their behalf.

6. The learned Authority after hearing both parties and considering the entire evidence on record, held that the applicants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,41,891/-. The 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties were accordingly directed to deposit the said amount along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from

13.04.2013 till the date of realization.

7. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Authority, the insurance company preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:-

(i) that the learned Authority did not consider the fact that the deceased was not having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident.

(ii) that the le