JUDGMENT:

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the Judgment dated 17.05.2017 in W.C.No.39 of 2005 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Karimnagar.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned Commissioner.

I. Brief Facts:

3. The applicants, being the parents and sister of Martha Suresh (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘the deceased’), filed a claim petition under Section 22 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 seeking compensation of Rs.4,48,000/- against the opposite parties on account of the death of the deceased in the accident that occurred on 29.09.2005. The deceased, who was aged about 20 years old and employed by Opposite Party No.1 as engine mechanic on monthly wage of Rs.3,000/-, alleged to have died during the course of his employment with opposite party No.1. On 06.04.2005 the deceased was instructed by the Opposite Party No.1 to bring a new vehicle Bajaj Discovery 125 CC, T/R bearing No.AP-15-B-1240 from Karimnagar Bajaj Chetak Showroom to Huzurabad Mahalaxmi Motors. Accordingly, the deceased went to Karimnagar showroom and after delivery of the new vehicle while returning from Karimnagar to Huzurabad on the said vehicle, at the outskirts of the Singapoor village of Huzurabad, at about 7:30 pm., dashed a road side tree and sustained several injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Huzurabad Hospital and from there, he was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal, where the doctor declared the deceased as dead. Opposite party No.1, who was the employer of the Mahalaxmi Motors paid Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and assured to pay compensation, but failed to do so. Hence, the applicants claimed a compensation of Rs.4,48,000/- from the opposite party Nos.1 and 2.

4. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 filed their respective counters denying all the averments of the application including the employment, age and wages of the deceased and requested to dismiss the claim petition. The opposite party No.2 specifically contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the mechanic, who was not a driver. It is further alleged that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as they were not aware of the accident.

II. Issues framed before the learned Commissioner:

5. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Commissioner framed the following issues:-

(i) Whether there was employee employer relationship between the deceased and opposite party No.1 as on the date of the accident?

(ii) Whether the deceased met with an accident out of and in course of his employment with the opposite party No.1 as o the date of accident?

(iii) The exact age and wage of the deceased in case of compensation is due?

(iv) Whether the opposite party No.2 is liable to pay compensation?

III. Evidence before the learned Commissioner:

6. Before the learned Commissioner, the applicant No.1 himself was examined as PW1 and a co-worker of the deceased by name Sri Kolipaka Srinivas was examined as PW2, while Exs.A1 to A4 were marked.

7. On behalf of opposite party No.1, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced.

8. On behalf of opposite party No.2, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B3.

IV. Finding of the learned Commissioner:

9. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Commissioner awarded an amount of Rs.4,97,728/- towards compensation along with interest. Aggrieved thereby, the opposite party No.2/Insurance Company preferred the present appeal.

10. Heard Sri V.Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/opposite party No.1 and Sri V.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/claimants.

V. Point for Determination:

11. Now, the point that emerges for determination is:

“Whether the impugned order of the learned Commissioner warrants interference by th