JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the order dated 03.01.2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned order’) in W.C. Case No.44 of 2016 passed by the learned Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I, at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Commissioner’), the opposite party No.2/Insurance Company filed the present Appeal.

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

BRIEF FACTS:

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

a) The applicant filed an application under the provisions of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the course of his employment as a driver under opposite party No.1, against opposite party Nos.1 and 2.

b) It was alleged in the claim application that he was working as a driver on Jeep bearing No. AP 10F 7845 under the employment of opposite party No.1 on a monthly wage of Rs.10,000/- and batta of Rs.100/- per day. It was further alleged that on 14.02.2016, while the claimant was on duty as driver on the said jeep and proceeding at the outskirts of Koyyautta, Tadkole, at about 8:30 hours, near Chedala Wagu, he turned the steering to avoid a pit, due to which the jeep turned turtle. As a result of the said accident, the applicant sustained severe bleeding injuries including right brachial artery avulsion with ischemia, fracture of proximal ulna (right), head injury Dia Grade-III, blunt injury to chest and other injuries all over the body. Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Nizamabad through 108 ambulance and thereafter to Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad for better treatment, where his right hand was amputated and surgery was performed on his right leg.

c) It was further submitted that a case in Crime No.42 of 2016 under Section 337 of the IPC was registered by Banswada Police Station, Nizamabad District. The applicant stated that he was aged about 21 years at the time of the accident and that the injuries were sustained during the course and out of his employment under opposite party No.1, resulting in permanent disability and incapacity to work as a driver. The applicant further stated that the jeep bearing No. AP 10F 7845 was insured with opposite party No.2 vide insurance policy bearing No. 0507003115P111086721 valid from 23.12.2015 to 22.12.2016, covering the date of accident. Therefore, the applicant claimed compensation of Rs 20,00,000/- along with the interest and costs against the opposite parties.

4. Opposite party No. 1st/employer admitted all the averments made in the claim petition by the applicant but disowned his liability on the ground that the jeep bearing No. AP 10F 7845 was insured with the opposite party No.2 and that the insurance policy was valid as on the date of the accident. He contended that he was indemnified by the opposite party No.2 and therefore, requested that the claim against him may be dismissed.

5. Opposite party No.2/Insurance Company, in its counter, denied all the averments made in the claim application including the employment of the applicant under opposite party No.1, the existence of employer and employee relationship, the applicant being a workman within the meaning of the Act, the manner of accident, the injuries alleged to have been sustained, the treatment taken, medical expenditure, disability, age, wages and batta. It also denied that the applicant was having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and denied that the jeep bearing No. AP 10F 7845 had a valid insurance policy, permit and fitness certificate as on the date of the accident. It is also stated that the compensation claimed along with interest and costs is excessive and exaggerated and prayed to dismiss the claim application against it.

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER:

6. During the course of enquiry, the applicant examined h