JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the order dated 09.10.2016 in W.C. Case No.46 of 2015 passed by the learned Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-IV, at Hyderabad, the opposite party No.2/Insurance company has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the learned Assistant Commissioner.

BRIEF FACTS:

3. The brief facts as borne out from the record are as under:

a) The applicants/claimants, who are the wife, children and father of late Mallaiah (deceased), filed a claim petition stating that the deceased, who was working as a labourer on lorry bearing No. AIT 2775, sustained fatal injuries in an accident that occurred on 21.04.2015 during the course and out of his employment under opposite party No.1. On the said date, after loading dry grass at Hyderabad, the deceased along with the driver and other labourers were proceeding from Hyderabad towards Andole side, at about 6:30 A.M., near ORR Ring Road, Kollur Village of R.C. Puram Mandal, Medak District, the driver of the said lorry drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against a stationed lorry bearing No. AP 07X 4887 from behind. As a result of the accident, the deceased sustained head injury and other grievous internal injuries and died on the spot.

b) A case in Crime No.225 of 2015 under Section 304(A) IPC was registered by P.S. R.C. Puram. The deceased, who was aged about 40 years at the time of the accident, was being paid wages of Rs.8,000/- per month by the opposite party No.1. It is further stated that the lorry bearing No. AIT 2775 was insured with the opposite party No.2 under policy bearing No. 3381/00350634/000/00 valid from 17.09.2014 to 16.09.2015, covering the date of accident. Therefore, the applicants claimed Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation along with interest and costs from the opposite parties.

4. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 filed their respective counters.

5. Opposite party No.1, admitted all the averments made in the claim petition but stated that he was paying wages of Rs.6,000/- per month and Rs.100/- per day towards batta to the deceased. He further stated that as the lorry was insured with the 2nd opposite party and the policy was valid as on the date of accident, he is not liable to pay compensation. He also contended that the compensation claimed by the applicants is excessive and not in accordance with law.

6. Opposite party No.2 /Insurance Company denied the relationship of the applicants with the deceased, the employment of the deceased as a labourer on lorry bearing No. AIT 2775, the occurrence and manner of the accident, the wages and age of the deceased, the deceased died during the course and out of employment. It also denied that the said lorry was insured with it, denied that the risk of the deceased was covered under the policy, denied that the driver possessed a valid driving licence, and denied that the lorry was in roadworthy condition at the time of the accident. The opposite party No.2 further contended that the applicants must prove that they have not claimed compensation from the owner and insurer of the other lorry bearing No. AP 07X 4887 and stated that the owner and insurer of the said vehicle are necessary parties and in their absence the petition is not maintainable. Reserving it’s right to file additional counter, the opposite party No.2 sought dismissal of the application against it.

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER:

7. On behalf of the applicants, the applicant No.1 was examined as AW1 and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of FIR, Ex.A2 is the certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A3 is the certified copy of inquest report, Ex.A4 is the certified copy of postmortem examination report, Ex.A5 is the certified copy of MVI report, Ex.A6 is the copy of driving licence of the driver of the lorry, Ex.A7 is the copy of RC of the lorry, Ex.A8 i