JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 29.11.2017 in E.C.No.64 of 2017 passed by the learned Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour – IV: T.Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavanam, R.T.C. X Roads, Hyderabad, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the appellant/opposite party No.2.

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 applicant, who is injured in the accident filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest against the opposite party Nos.1 and 2. According to the claimant, he was working as an driver on Auto bearing registration No. AP 23Y 7635 under the employment of opposite party No.1 and he received personal injuries by an accident that occurred on 23.11.2016 during the course and out of his employment. The claimant stated that on 23.11.2016, while he was on duty, he along with others proceeding on the said auto from Sangareddy 'X' roads to Jogipet, on the way at about 09.00 A.M, when the auto reached near Singur 'X' roads, one lorry bearing No. GJ 06XX 7548 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the auto of the applicant. As a result, the applicant sustained fracture of right arm middle shaft humerus, deep laceration over right frontal region, laceration over right thigh, blunt injury to right arm region, right ear bleed besides multiple facial bone fracture with shock. Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Sangareddy and later he was shifted to MNR Hospital for better treatment and he incurred an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards his treatment. The applicant stated that he sustained the said injuries during the course and out of his employment and because of the said injuries, he became permanently disabled person and cannot work as a driver anymore. The applicant stated that the Police, Pulkal registered a case vide Cr.No.128/2016 under Sec.304(A) and 337 of the I.P.C. Hence, the appellant claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the opposite party Nos.1 and 2.

4. The opposite party No.1 filed counter denying all the averments of the application including the manner of the accident and disowned his liability on the ground that he has insured his auto with the opposite party No.2 and the insurance policy was in force when the accident took place and requested to dismiss the claim petition.

5. The opposite party No.2, filed counter denying all the averments of the application including manner of the accident, employment of the claimant with opposite party No.1, age and income of the claimant, etc. It was further contended that the driver of the auto did not possess a valid driving license at the time of the accident and the claim made was excessive and exorbitant, as such, prayed to dismiss the claim application.

II. Issues framed before the learned Commissioner:

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

(i) Whether the applicant sustained injuries in the accident on 23.11.2016 during the course and out of his employment as a driver on the auto bearing No.AP 23Y 7635 under the employment of the 1stopp.party?

(ii) If yes, what is the percentage of physical disability and consequent loss of earning capacity suffered by the applicant?

(iii) Who are liable to pay compensation to the applicant?

and;

(iv) What is the amount of compensation entitled by the applicant?

III. Evidence before the learned Commissioner:

7. Before the learned Commissioner, on behalf of the applicant, AWs1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A10.

8. On behalf of opposite party No. 2, RW1 was examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B3. On behalf of opposite party No.1, no or and documentary evidence was adduced.

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.7,5