THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.3318 OF 2002 AND XOBJSR.No.51574 of 2003 COMMON JUDGMENT: One Mr. Mohd. Sharif, husband of the 1st respondent, father of respondents 2 to 4 and son of the 5th respondent was employed as a Driver with the 6th respondent to work on Toyota Qualis Vehicle bearing No.AP-28Q-3026. On 18.08.2000 at about 10:30 p.m., he was driving the vehicle on Necklace Road, Hyderabad. An accident occurred, in which Sharif received serious injuries and he was admitted to C.D.R. Hospital. An operation was conduced, but inspite of the same, he died on 29.08.2000. Respondents 1 to 5 filed W.C.Case No.133 of 2001 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad-II (for short ‘the Commissioner’) claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. It was pleaded that Sharif was drawing a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month as salary apart from Rs.50/- per day as batta and he was aged 30 years. The 6th respondent filed a counter admitting the fact that the deceased was employed with them and that he received injuries while on duty. It was however pleaded that since the vehicle is insured with the appellant, they are not liable to pay compensation. The appellant entered appearance and filed the counter. Respondents 1 to 5 were put to strict proof of the facts pleaded by them. Through order, dated 31.08.2001, the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.2,08,480/-. The appellant challenges the same on several grounds. Respondents 1 to 5 on the other hand filed cross objections seeking enhancement of the compensation. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4. Before the Commissioner, Exs.A.1 to A.5 were filed, on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. On behalf of the appellant, Ex.R.1 was filed. The particulars of oral evidence are not furnished in the order. A feeble attempt was made by the appellant to convince this Court that there did not exist any relationship of employee and employer between the deceased and the 6th respondent. The said contention becomes untenable, in view of the fact that the 6th respondent filed a counter admitting the fact that the deceased was employed with them. The principal ground urged on behalf of the appellant is that the death of the deceased was not on account of the accident. Elaborating this plea, it is stated that the accident occurred on 18.08.2000 and about 10 days thereafter, the driver died on account of fat embolism. In case, the fat embolism was an independent factor that intervened after the accident, the contention could certainly have been accepted. Fat embolism is a phenomenon, that occurred as a result of the operation conducted on the injured. The operation in turn was necessitated on account of the accident. Hence, there exists a clear causal connection between the death of the deceased and the accident. Hence, the finding of the Commissioner that the death of the deceased was on account of the accident is upheld. There does not exist any dispute about the quantum. The Commissioner applied the correct parameters and awarded the amount. Though respondents 1 to 5 filed cross objections, it is not mentioned as to how the compensation awarded by the Commissioner is inadequate. Hence, the C.M.A. and cross objections are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 01.12.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.3318 OF 2002 AND XOBJSR.No.51574 of 2003 Date: 01.12.2011 JSU