HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3479 of 2009 DATE:11.03.2010 Between: The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., represented by its Divisional Manager, Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad. … Petitioner And Boggu Chennamma and others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3479 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is filed by the petitioner-6th opposite party-Insurance Company against the order dated 19.06.2009 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Mahabubnagar, in I.A.No.14 of 2009 in W.C.No.30 of 2003(F). 2. For the purpose of convenience and to avoid ambiguity, the parties hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in W.C.No.30 of 2003(F). 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicants filed W.C.No.30 of 2003 (F) before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Mahabubnagar, against the opposite parties, claiming compensation for the death of Boggu Krishnaiah during the course of employment on 13.05.2001. Having considered the entire evidence, the learned Commissioner allowed the said case, by an order dated 25.09.2007, awarding a total sum of Rs.2,06, 255/- and holding the opposite parties 1 to 4 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 4. According to the 6th opposite party-Insurance company, by oversight it has deposited the compensation amount to the credit of W.C.No.30 of 2003 on 08.04.2009, though it is not liable to pay any compensation to the applicants, as per the order dated 25.09.2007 passed by the learned Commissioner in the said case. Hence, it has filed an application in I.A.No.14 of 2009 in W.C.No.30 of 2003 seeking refund of the said amount. But, the said application was dismissed, by the learned Commissioner, by an order, dated 19.06.2009. The same is questioned in this revision. 5. Heard the learned standing counsel for the 6th opposite party and the learned counsel for the claimants. 6. A perusal of paragraph No.22 of the order dated 25.09.2007 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Mahabubnagar, in W.C.No.30 of 2003(F), shows that the opposite parties 1, 2, 3 and 6 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the applicants. It reads as follows: “The 1st opposite party company is the principal employer of the deceased workman. While the opposite parties 4 and 5 are the managers of the company. Opposite parties 2 and 3 are sub-contractors. Therefore, it is held that the three opposite parties as principal employer and sub-contractors of the same work are jointly liable to pay compensatioin to the dependents of the deceased workman. The 6th opposite party as the insurer of the worksite is bound to indemnify the 1st opposite party. No liability can be attached under the Act against the opposite parties 4 and 5 as they are only managers of the 1st opposite party. In the result, the opposite parties 1,2,3 and 6 are jointly and severally held liable to pay compensation to the applicants who are the dependents of the deceased workman.” 7. In the light of the above, the contention of the learned counsel for the 6th opposite party-Insurance company that the 6th opposite party is not liable to deposit the compensation amount, cannot be countenanced. But however, as rightly contended by the learned counsel, a mistake has crept in the last paragraph of the order dated 25.09.2007 passed by the learned Commissioner in W.C.No.30 of 2003(F) i.e, fixing of liability of payment of compensation on the opposite parties 1, 2, 3 and 4 instead of fixing the same on the opposite parties 1, 2, 3 and 6. 8. Now that the 6th opposite party-Insurance company has already deposited the compensation amount and the intention of the learned Commissioner is to fix the liability on the 6th opposite party-Insurance company, in my considered view, it is desirable that either the 4th opposite party or the claimants may approach the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Mahabubnagar, and file an application seeking amendment of the order dated 25.09.2007 passed in W.C.No.30 of 2003(F), and on such application, the learned Commissioner shall pass appropriate orders, within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter. 9. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. __________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 11th March, 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. by one week. (b/o) cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3479 of 2009 (Disposed of) 11th March, 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. by one week. (b/o) cbs