THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A.No.241 0f 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed assailing the orders dated 25.01.2005 in W.C.No.75 of 2004 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I, at Hyderabad wherein and whereby the insurance company fastened with liability to pay compensation to the respondents 1 and 2-applicants. 2. The brief facts are that the deceased was working as a Cleaner under O.P.No.2 on the accident lorry bearing registration No.AP 16 V 3949; that he was paid @ Rs.3,000/- per month towards wages; that he was aged about 20 years by the time of his death in the accident; that the accident vehicle was insured with the appellant- O.P.No.3 and the policy was valid from 01.02.2004 to 31.01.2005 and it was in force by the date of the accident. 3. The factum of accident and the death of the deceased therein are admitted facts. However, it is to be seen that whether the deceased was working under the employment of the fourth respondent-O.P.No.2 by the date of the accident and whether there was employer and employee relationship between them. 4. It is the case of the appellant-insurance company that there was no employer and employee relationship between the fourth respondent-O.P.No.2 and the deceased; that though the policy was in force, the ownership of the vehicle was transferred prior to the date of the accident, however, the policy was not got transferred in the name of the transferee which is mandatory under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and as such, the liability is to be fastened on the owner who so ever happens to be the owner of the vehicle on the date of the accident, since the contractual relationship does not exist between such owner and the insurer; that the employer and employee relationship between the deceased and the fourth respondent- O.P.No.2 was absent and that the driver of the offending vehicle was having only LMV driving licence and not HMV licence at the time of the accident and the same amounts to violation of the policy conditions. 5. On the other hand, it is the case of respondents 1 and 2- applicants that as per the information obtained in R. No.12823/B4/2005 dated 02.9.2005 from Licencing Authority, West Godavari, Eluru, the driver of the offending vehicle is authorised to drive LMV (non- transport), LMV (transport) and Heavy Goods vehicles and Heavy Passenger vehicles (TVEH). The driving licence is valid up to 13.11.2006 (T) and 8.10.2021 (NT); that Ex.A5-insurance policy was also transferred in favour of the fourth respondent-O.P.No.2 who was the owner of the offending vehicle by the date of the accident and as such the appellant-insurance company is liable to pay compensation as ordered by the lower authority by its impugned order in view of Ex.A5-insurance policy being in force by the date of the accident; that as per the contents of the counter filed by the fourth respondent-O.P.No.2 before the lower authority, the deceased was working under him as a labourer on the offending vehicle to load and unload the sand and therefore, there existed the relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and the fourth respondent-O.P.No.2 who is the owner of the offending vehicle and as such, the insurance company cannot avoid its liability from paying the compensation as awarded by the lower authority; that taking into consideration inter alia the age, employment and earnings of the deceased and by duly following G.O.Ms.No.30, L.E.T.& F (Lab-II), Department dated 27.7.2000, the lower authority fixed the minimum wages of the deceased and awarded compensation in favour of respondents 1 and 2, who are the applicants 1 and 2 in W.C.No.75 of 2004. 6. Having regard to the submissions made on either side, the evidence on record and the circumstances of the case in general and information obtained by the applicants in R.No. 12823/B4/2005 dated 02.9.2005 from Licencing Authority in particular, as well as Ex.A.5- insurance policy being in force at the relevant time, which has already been stated in Para No.5 supra, this court is of the considered opinion that it is needless to say that respondents 1 and 2-applicants have proved their case and in that view of the matter, the order impugned does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference from this court and the C.M.A. is liable to be dismissed. 7. In the result, the C.M.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs. ​ ​ _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 21-10-2010 Stp