THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO CMA.No.632 of 2016

ORDER:

The present appeal is filed under Section 30 of Employee’s Compensation Act, assailing the order in W.C.No.25 of 2007 dated 19.06.2015, passed by Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Adilabad.

2. Appellant is the O.P.No.2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the applicants and respondent No.3 is the O.P.No.1 in W.C.No.25 of 2007.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned authority failed to appreciate the facts that the employee was not in the employment or discharging his employment duties under his master at the time of accident and the commissioner failed to look into the counter filed by O.P.No.1 in W.C.No.25 of 2007 that he did not admit that the victim died in the course of his employment while driving his tractor, it is only an after call and developed version causing loss to the exchequer of the insurance company and that the victim was going to his house on the directions of his master, prayed to allow the appeal.

4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2-applicants submits that no substantial question of law is made out in the appeal and the order passed by the Commissioner of Labour, Adilabad, does not require interference of this Court.

5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2-applicants have filed claim application under Section 22 of Workmen’s compensation Act, 1923, r/w. Rule 20 of Workmen’s Compensation (A.P.) Rule, 1953. It is stated in the claim petition that the deceased N.Narayana, S/o. Pothalingu, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Tractor Driver bearing No.AP-1-G-2536 owned by respondent No.3-opposite party No.1 and insured with the appellant-opposite party No.2, who died in the motor accident which took place on 03.01.2007 at about 8.30 PM, near Pusai Village on NH-7 road under limits of P.S.Jainath of Adilabad District. The deceased Narayana was earning Rs.4,000/- per month and prayed to award compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in total with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident, till the date of the closure and also by awarding cost.

6. Respondent No.3-O.P.No.1, filed counter and admitted the accident, it is further stated that on his instructions, the deceased went to have dinner and while returning back to the work place to transport cotton bales, unfortunately he met with an accident and the deceased was paid Rs.3,500/- per month, Rs.75/- towards batta.

7. Appellant-O.P.No.2 filed counter and denied the accident and further stating that there is no relationship of employer and employee and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

8. The Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad, has framed the following issues:

1) Whether the deceased died on 03.01.2007 during the course and out of his employment under the employment of OP1.

2) If yes, who are liable to pay compensation to the dependents of the deceased and

3) What is the amount of compensation entitled by the dependent of the deceased.

9. Respondent No.1-applicant is examined as AW1, got marked Exs.A1 to A9. Respondent No.3-O.P.No.1 is examined as RW1, appellant-O.P.No.2 is examined as RW2 and got marked Ex.R1.

10. The learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Adilabad, has allowed the O.P. filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2-applicants holding that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the applicants (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) for the death of the deceased workmen who died in the accident that occurred on 03.01.2007 and awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,638/- with advocate fee of Rs.1,000/-, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order along with interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of filing the case, till the date of the order.

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

12. Now the point for consideration is : whether the appellant has made out any case to set aside the impugned order and if so, if any substantial question of law is made out?

13. The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the Appeal is confined