HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2319 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded in W.C. No.26 of 1996(F) vide order dated 13-12-2000 by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Mahabubnagar, and its liability to pay the same, the New India Assurance Company Limited preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. Appellant, which is insurer of the lorry bearing No.APC – 9547 involved in the accident, is opposite party No.2, respondent Nos.1 to 4, who are wife, daughter and parents respectively of the deceased, are applicants and respondent No.5, who is owner of the above lorry, is opposite party No.1 in the W.C. before the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the W.C. before the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. 4. The case of the applicants, who are legal representatives of the deceased workman Mustaq Ahmed, is that deceased was employed with opposite party No.1 as driver on lorry bearing No.APC – 9547 for a monthly salary of Rs.1,500/-. While so, on 09-07-1995, while the deceased and another driver Srinu, loaded Castor in the above lorry at Nagarkurnool and were proceeding to Hyderabad via Tadoor, near 132/33 K.V. Sub-Station, lorry turned turtle, due to which, deceased fell down and the lorry fell on him, as a result, deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot. At the time of accident, another driver Srinu was driving the lorry. A case in Crime No.111 of 1995 was registered by the police of Nagarkurnool Police Station for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and investigated into. Thus, deceased died during the course of employment while discharging duties under opposite party No.1, as such, the applicants, who are dependants on the deceased, filed W.C. claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. 5. Opposite party No.1 filed counter admitting employment of the deceased with him and occurrence of the accident. 6. Opposite party No.2, insurance company, filed its counter denying the case of the applicants and its liability for payment of compensation. 7. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation: “1. Whether the deceased Mustaq Ahmed was a workman as per the provisions of the Act died Due to personal injuries received in the accident arising out of and in the course of his Employment. 2. What was the age of the deceased at the time of accident ? 3. What were the wages paid upto the deceased at the time of accident? 4. The amount of compensation payable, 5. Who liable to pay compensation.” 8. To prove their case, applicants got examined AWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. On behalf of the opposite parties, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B-1, copy of the insurance policy, was marked. 9. Based on the evidence on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, learned Commissioner awarded a compensation of Rs.2,03,656/- to the applicants. Questioning its liability and quantum of compensation, opposite party No.2, insurance company, preferred this appeal. 10. Now the contention of the learned counsel for opposite party No.2, insurance company, is that the amount claimed by the applicants was only Rs.1,50,000/- and the learned Commissioner without giving any reasons awarded Rs.2,03,656/-, which is more than the amount claimed by the applicants. It is also his contention that the deceased, who was a spare driver in the lorry at the time of accident, was not covered under the policy as only one driver and a cleaner are covered by it. 11. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this appeal ? 12. As far as the deceased being the spare driver of the lorry that met with the accident is concerned, there is no dispute about the same as opposite party No.1 has admitted the same in his counter. The learned Commissioner has referred to a decision in ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. KHASIM[1], wherein it was laid down that even for the spare driver, who was not actually driving the vehicle at the time of accident, also be treated as employee of the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. Furthermore, according to the learned counsel for the insurance company, cleaner is covered under the insurance policy. In the circumstances, the deceased driver can be treated even as cleaner of the lorry for the purpose of this case as there is no material showing that there was any separate cleaner on the lorry at the time of accident. 13. In these circumstances and in view of the nature of the case, which being the claim under Workmen’s Compensation Act and where the law shall be interpreted in favour of the workman, I see no ground to differ with the findings of the learned Commissioner on the question of liability for payment of compensation of the insurance company. 14. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, as contended by the learned counsel for the insurance company, no proper reasons are given for awarding compensation more than the amount claimed by the applicants. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Commissioner, depending on the minimum wage, arrived at more than the compensation claimed by the applicants and accordingly awarded the same. But, there was no authentic material with regard to age of the deceased. Applicant No.1 is shown to be aged 22 years. If that is so, in all probability, the deceased might not have been more than 23 years old at the time of accident. Exs.A-8 and A-9, ration card and seventh class marks memorandum, cannot be accepted as authentic as those could have been manipulated for the purpose of this case. 15. Considering all these circumstances, I hold that the applicants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- as claimed by them in the W.C. but not more than that. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner is reduced to Rs.1,50,000/- from Rs.2,03,656/-. It is made clear that the applicants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) only, as claimed by them in the W.C. 16. With the above directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J November 2, 2010. PV [1] ILR 1996 Karnataka 793