IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1552 OF 2003 Between: United India Insurance Company Limited …Appellant And M. Shatrugna & another … Respondents This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1552 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: Questioning liability of the insurance company for payment of compensation to the injured/first respondent, this Appeal is filed. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Sanga Reddy, by the impugned award, dated 05.10.2002, in W.C.No.14 of 1999, awarded compensation of Rs.56,778/- to the first respondent on the ground that the injured/first respondent was working as cleaner on the insured vehicle under the second respondent/insured. 2. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that the injured was not a cleaner in the lorry and was only an unauthorized passenger in the accident mini lorry and that therefore, the Commissioner should not have entertained the application for compensation for injuries received by the first respondent. At this stage, there is no dispute about factum of accident and the first respondent sustaining injuries in that accident. The dispute is only regarding status of the first respondent as Cleaner in the lorry and as worker under the insured/second respondent. Even though the insurance company raised the question regarding status of the injured, the Commissioner did not address the same in the impugned order. In the entire criminal case record relating to this accident and which record is placed before the Commissioner, the first respondent/injured was not referred as cleaner in the lorry and was referred as only barber travelling in the lorry. In Ex.A-1-copy of FIR, Ex.A-2-copy of medical certificate and Ex-A-5-charge sheet, the injured/first respondent was only referred as a person travelling in the lorry and his avocation is given as barber. The second respondent/insured/owner of mini lorry did not put up any contest before the Commissioner. Except assertion of the injured/first respondent as P.W.1 that he was cleaner on the accident lorry, for which there is no recorded basis, the injured could not prove that he was working as cleaner in the accident vehicle. The record proved it otherwise. In those circumstances, the Commissioner totally erred in entertaining the application for compensation. Since the first respondent/injured was not a cleaner or worker on the insured lorry, the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim application for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. I find that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is without jurisdiction and is contrary to law. 3. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed with costs setting aside the impugned award. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 24, 2010 KL HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1552 OF 2003 December 24, 2010 KL