HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.2842 of 2001 DATED: 29.01.2010 BETWEEN: The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. …Appellant And K.Buchi Reddy and others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.2842 of 2001 JUDGMENT:- This appeal is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company, which is the opposite party No.2 in W.C.No.238 of 1994/F on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Nalgonda. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company. None appears for the respondents. 3. The deceased K.Ravinder Reddy was working as driver on tractor/trailor No. AAG-6851 and ADB 1612 involved in the accident occurred on 21.11.1993 and it was during the course of employment while the deceased was discharging duties as driver of the above vehicle. The father claimed to be the sole dependent and legal heir filed the application before the learned Commissioner seeking compensation on account of the death of his son, who was unmarried and was aged about 22 years. After making an enquiry into the said application on merits, the learned commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.88,480/- to the brother and sister of the deceased who were brought on record as applicants 2 and 3 being the legal representatives of the father who died subsequent to filing of the claim application. 4. In its appeal the insurance company raised two substantial questions of law and they are: 1) The applicants 2 and 3, who are the brother and sister of the deceased not being the dependents on the deceased and being the legal representatives of the father are not entitled for compensation and the learned Commissioner erroneously held that they are entitled for compensation. 2) The owner of the vehicle stated in his counter that he was paying an amount of Rs.800/- per month towards salary to the deceased and the learned Commissioner ought not to have taken the wages of the deceased at Rs.1,000/- per month for the purpose of computing the compensation. 5. In so far as the first question is concerned, the learned Commissioner in his order has rightly held that the amount of compensation became due payable to the first applicant/father of the deceased on the date of accident i.e. on the date of the death of his son and further that had the employer taken steps to pay any compensation amount it would have been received by the father who was sole dependant. The learned commissioner also clarified that since the brother and sister of the deceased are the legal representatives of the father who is entitled to receive the same after his death can claim the same after the death of their father. 6. The learned commissioner, rightly arrived at the conclusion that the applicants 2 and 3 being the legal representatives of the first applicant are entitled for compensation. This point is therefore, answered against the appellant-insurance company. 7. With regard to second question, in the counter filed by the employer he had specifically stated that he was paying an amount of Rs.800/- per month to the deceased towards salary and further sum of Rs.10/- per day towards batta and the total amount comes to Rs.1060/- per month. Therefore, the learned Commissioner did not commit any misstate in considering the salary of the deceased at Rs.1,000/- per month and thus, this point is also answered against the appellant-insurance company. 8. For the foregoing reasons, I absolutely see no merit in the appeal filed by the insurance company and accordingly, the same is dismissed without any order as to costs. __________________ R. KANTHA RAO,J Date: 29.01.2010 kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.2842 of 2001 DATED: 29.01.2010