JUDGMENT:

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants challenging the order, dt.27.01.2006 in WC.No.191 of 2004 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad-I (for short ‘the Commissioner’), seeking enhancement of compensation.

Brief facts of both the case:

2. The claimants filed application under Section 22 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of the deceased-late Vattipalli Somaiah, who was employed as driver on the jeep bearing registration No.AP 24 A 3707 belonging to Opposite Party (1) on a monthly salary of Rs.2,500/-.

3. On the fateful day, i.e., on 29.06.1997, some persons hired the said jeep of Opposite Party(1) and when the deceased was driving the said jeep from Pamukuntla (V) towards Ramcherla(V), a lorry bearing registration No.AP 27 4729, which was proceeding ahead of the jeep in a rash and negligent manner, applied sudden brakes near the outskirts of Kolampak, due to which the jeep dashed against the said lorry, as a result of which, the deceased, sustained grievous injuries all over the body and died while he was being taken to the Government Community Hospital, Bhongir.

4. Further, the police, Aleru P.S. had registered a case in Crime No.47 of 1997 under Section 304-A of IPC and conducted investigation.

5. The claimants contended that as on the date of incident, deceased was aged about 25 years, hale, healthy and working as driver under Opposite Party(1) and earning Rs.2,500/- p.m., and on account of the untimely death of the deceased, the claimants, who are solely dependent on the earnings of the deceased, suffered mental agony and thus claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. It was further contended that Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the subject vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.

6. The Opposite Party (1) filed counter admitting the averments of the application and stated that the subject vehicle was validly insured with the Opposite Party(2) and the policy was in force from 20.06.1997 to 19.l06.1968 and prayed to direct the Opposite Party(2) to indemnify him and dismiss the application against him.

7. The Opposite Party (2) filed counter denying the averments of the application and in the additional counter filed, and disclaimed their liability to indemnify the Opposite Party(1) on the ground of violation of the conditions of the policy issued to the latter on the ground that the subject jeep was used for ‘hire’ as per the FIR and panchanama i.e., for commercial purpose, against the conditions of the policy, and therefore contended that applicants were not entitled to compensation and prayed to dismiss the application.

8. Before the Commissioner, applicant No.3, who is the wife of the deceased, was examined as AW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On the other hand, RWs1 and 2 were examined and Ex.D1 was marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties.

9. The Commissioner after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, while holding that the deceased-workman died of personal injuries caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the Opposite Party(1), granted compensation of Rs.1,77,255/- payable by Opposite Parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally.

10. Challenging the quantum of compensation and refusal to grant interest under Section 4A(3) of the Workmen Compensation Act, the instant appeal has been filed by the claimants.

11. Heard Sri K.L.N.Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, Smt I.Mammu Vani, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2- Insurance Company.

12. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Commissioner erred in considering the income of the deceased on lower side and also failed to grant interest in terms of the Act and prayed to allow the appeal granting compensation along with interest as prayed for.

13. Per con