HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.NO. 337 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, is directed against the order dated 24.07.2004 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Warangal II, Warangal District (for short ‘the Court below’) in WC No. 16 of 2003 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 4,15,000/- for the death of one R. Durgaiah in an accident that occurred on 5.8.2002 at about 5.00 AM while he was on work, when the deceased was working as labourer, for loading and unloading stones/crushed stone, on the Tractor and Trailer bearing No. AP 36V 393 & 394 belong to the sixth respondent herein, the driver of the Tractor and Trailer drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and all of a sudden applied breaks, due to which, the deceased was thrown on the road from the vehicle and he succumbed to grievous injuries. First respondent owner of the tractor and trailer and the second respondent- insurer of the vehicle also field its counter denying the allegations made in the petition. 2. The Commissioner held that the workman/employee died during the course of his employment, the first respondent as the employer and owner of the vehicle and the insurer of the vehicle are liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. The Commissioner also taking into consideration the evidence available on record, granted total compensation of Rs. 3,97,507.50/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of accident till the date of payment. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the claimants failed to prove the employer-employee relationship and the learned Commissioner failed to see that the sixth respondent herein has not examined himself and therefore, the allegations made in his counter are not proved. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 submits that as far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the order of the Commissioner is quite reasonable and there is no need to interfere with the order 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. 6. It is evident from the record that the accident occurred during the course of employment when the deceased on instructions of the 6th respondent went for loading and unloading stones/crushed stone on the Tractor and Trailor and when he reached near bus stand, Mahabubabad, the driver of the Tractor and Trailor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and applied sudden breaks and due to which, the deceased fell down and succumbed to grievous injuries on the spot. The Commissioner taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, especially Ex. A3 certified copy of Postmortem examination report, the age of the deceased taken as 32 years and as per the counter of the sixth respondent wages paid to the deceased are Rs. 150/- per day and as per Ex. B1 risk was fully covered and the policy was in force from 11.9.2001 to 10.9.2002 and valid on 5.8.2002, assessed the compensation under Section 4 r/w Schedule IV of Workman’s Compensation Act as Rs.3,97,507.50., with interest at 9% per annum from the date of accident till the date of payment. Therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner is quite reasonable and based on the facts available on record. Hence, I see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner and the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 03.2.2011 KA