THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.1740 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the third opposite party – United India Insurance Co. Ltd., against the orders of the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam, in W.C.No.3/1996 dated 20.10.1997. 2. Heard. 3. The brief facts are as follows: The applicants, as legal representatives of the deceased, filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.1,16,480/- contending that the deceased Prakash was a worker under opposite party No.1 as a cleaner on a wages of Rs.40/- a day and he was aged 20 years. Opposite party No.2 is the principal employer and opposite party No.3 is the insurance company. On 11.11.1995 the deceased was on duty of cleaning at C.P.6 area and during that time he fell down and died on the spot. The first opposite party filed counter contending that the workers are covered under valid insurance of opposite party No.3. Appropriate counters were filed by the second and third opposite parties denying the petition allegations. 4. On behalf of the applicants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the opposite parties, O.Ps.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.M1 was marked. On the basis of the material on record, the commissioner granted total compensation of Rs.1,16,480/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the insurance company-O.P.No.3. 5. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing the appeal? 6. The main ground of the appellant is that an amount of Rs.18,000/- was paid by the contractor-opposite party No.1 to the applicants. As such, that amount ought to have been deducted from out of its liability. 7. Even though the contractor, first opposite party might paid Rs.18,000/- as immediate relief, that would not absorb the liability of the insurance company to pay that amount. On the other hand, it is for the first opposite party to claim that amount from the applicants from out of the compensation awarded to them and to be paid by the present appellant and it is not for the present appellant to claim the above amount, which is very paltry, i.e. Rs.18,000/-. 8. Considering these circumstances, I see no grounds in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 24th December 2010, Rns