HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A. No. 654 OF 2001. DATED 19TH AUGUST, 2010. BETWEEN The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Moghul Court Bhuildings, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. …Appellant and Smt. Tahera Begum …Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A. No. 654 of 2001. JUDGMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, is preferred by the New India Assurance Company Limited, aggrieved over the Award dated 28.8.1999 passed in W.C.No.100 of 1997 by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Ranga Reddy Zone, Hyderabad. 2. The aforesaid claim petition was ﬁled by the wife of the deceased—Md.Pasha claiming compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- on account of death of her husband in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 27.7.1997 during the course of his employment with second respondent. It was averred in the claim petition that the deceased was working as driver on lorry bearing No. ABT 3954 and while he was proceeding from Tandur to Warangal with a load of shabad stones and when the said lorry reached near Uppal bus depot at about 12.00 midnight, he stopped the lorry for urinal. After getting down the lorry, while he was crossing the road, a scooterist being driven the scooter bearing No.AP.28.E.8800 in rash and negligent manner, at high speed, dashed the deceased-workman, due to which he fell down on the road. Immediately the deceased was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where he succumbed to injuries. The police registered a case in Cr.No. 270 of 1997 under Section 304.A IPC against the scooterist. The applicant, who is dependent of the deceased-workman lost their earning member, filed the aforesaid claim petition. 3. Before the Tribunal, the ﬁrst respondent herein, who is OP.1-owenr of the vehicle ﬁled counter admitting the occurrence of the accident during the course of employment and earnings of the deceased at Rs.1800/- towards salary apart from batta. The appellant herein, who is OP.2-Insurance Company ﬁled counter denying the averments made in the claim petition and stated that claim is excessive and exorbitant and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Commissioner framed the following issues for enquiry and settlement: 1. Whether the deceased Mohd.Pasha was the workman within the meaning of the Act? 2. Whether the amount of compensation claimed is due or part of that amount ? 5. In order to prove the claim, on behalf of the applicant/ﬁrst respondent, she herself was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of the opposite side, owner of the lorry was examined as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.R.1 to T.3. 6. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Commissioner came to the conclusion that the deceased died in the motor vehicle accident during the course of his employment with second respondent/OP.1. Then proceeding to assess the compensation, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,77,354.00, apart from Court fee of Rs.354.00 and Advocate fee, Rs.400.00, in total Rs.1,78,108/-. 7. Aggrieved over the said award, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal. 8. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that the Court below ought not to have held that the deceased died during the course of employment in the absence of any documentary evidence, that the Court below ought to have taken into consideration the evidence of the owner of the lorry/OP.1 who deposed that there is no proof to show that the deceased was making payment of wages and that the compensation awarded by the Court below is excessive and exorbitant and hence prayed for setting aside the award under appeal. 9. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the ﬁrst respondent/applicant submitted that the Award passed by the learned Commissioner is proper and reasonable and the same is rendered based on the evidence on record and hence there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. The appeal was dismissed for default against second respondent vide docket order dated 28.08.2009. 11. It is to be seen that before the Tribunal, OP.1/owner of the lorry ﬁled counter admitting that the deceased was employed by him as driver on his lorry. However, no documentary evidence was ﬁled. However, Ex.A.1, FIR says that the deceased driver met with accident on 27.7.1997 during the course of his employment. It is further corroborated by Ex.A.2, Final report, Ex.A.1, FIR, Charge-sheet and Ex.A.3,Panchanama. All these documents would establish that the deceased died in the accident during the course of his employment with OP.1./second respondent. Based on the above documentary and oral evidence, the learned Commissioner rightly held that the deceased died during the course of his employment with OP.1/second respondent. Against the said ﬁnding of fact, no appeal has been preferred by the appellant or the second respondent and hence the said ﬁnding reached finality. 12. Then proceeding to assess the compensation, it is to be seen that, no certiﬁcate was ﬁled to show the age of the deceased. However, the post-mortem certiﬁcate Ex.A.4 shows that the age of the deceased would be 35 years. It was admitted in the evidence that the deceased was drawing Rs.1800/- and the same was conﬁrmed by OP.1/owner of the lorry. No documentary evidence was ﬁled. However, the learned Commissioner taking into consideration that the job of driver is covered under the Scheduled Employment of Public Motor Transport and as on the date of accident minimum wage payable to the heavy vehicle driver would be Rs.2190/-. Based on the same, the claim of the applicant that the deceased was drawing Rs.1800/- can be accepted. If the age factor 197.06 is taken for the age of the deceased at 35 years, the applicant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.1800 x 50/100 x 197.06 = Rs.1,77,354.00. Apart from the same, the Tribunal also awarded Court fee Rs.354.00 and Advocate fee of Rs.400.00,. Which cannot be interfered with. 13. For the aforesaid discussion, I do not see any reason to interfere with the well reasoned award of the learned Commissioner. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal calling interference with the Award under the appeal. 14. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ------------------------------------------------- JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED 19th August, 2010. Msnr.