THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.Nos.1004, 1011,1021 and 1022 of 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT: Since all these appeals arise out of the same accident, they are being taken up together for disposal. 2. These appeals are filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act’) by the appellant- insurance company against the orders, dated 08.08.2005, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Commissioner’) in W.C.Nos.14, 17, 16 and 10 of 2003 filed by the dependants claiming compensation. The dependants pleaded that on 09.07.1997 at about 6.30 hours, while the deceased and other labourers were returning on a lorry bearing No. AP-10 T 5014 after completion of the road work at Musheerabad, it met with an accident due to hit by a tipper bearing No.AP 9U 4144, thereby, some labourers died and others were injured during the course of their employment. All the cases were contested by the respondents. By the orders under appeal, the Commissioner awarded compensation to the dependants. Disputing the relationship of employer and employee, the appellant-insurer filed the present appeals. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondents-dependants. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer contended that as the deceased and the injured were engaged as labourers by Venkateswara Construction Works, they are no way connected with the lorry involved in the accident and as such, there is no relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and the owner of the crime vehicle and therefore, the Commissioner erred in awarding compensation to the dependants. He further contended that under Section 3 of the Act, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. He relied upon the decision reported in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, HYDERABAD v., SMT SABIA BEGUM[1] wherein it was held as under: “As much as the very employment was in dispute, the real question in controversy is, whether the deceased was in employment or not, as on the date of accident, with the first opposite party. Except the self-serving statement of the interested witness-A.W.1 there is no other independent evidence on record to prove the employment of the deceased, as such, it cannot be said that the deceased was employed by his own father for the purpose of driving the vehicle. May be that unfortunate applicants are dependants of the deceased, but in absence of proving employment of the deceased with the owner of the vehicle, they are not entitled to claim any compensation. Thought I am conscious of the fact that the scheme of the Act is a beneficial legislation to the accident victims, but, at the same time, the various provisions of the legislation, which are in the nature of quasi-penal one, have to be construed strictly. Entertaining any claim, like the one in this case, amounts to travelling beyond the scope of legislation. In that view of the matter, the impugned award of the Tribunal below is liable to be set aside, and accordingly, the same is set aside. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in AKULA SURYANARAYANA @ SURIBABU v. PEDDIBOINA VENKATA MOHAN @ MOHAN RAO[2] wherein it was held as under: Workmen’s Compensation Act being a social and beneficial legislation, workman need not prove existence of relationship of employer and employee beyond reasonable doubt as in a criminal case. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents-dependants contended that the deceased were engaged as labourers by M/s. Bashaiah & Sons Company to work in Venkateshwara Construction Works and therefore, the insurer and the owner are liable to pay compensation to the dependants. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in SHAKUNTALA CHANDRAKANT SHRESHTI v. PRABHAKAR MARUTI GARVALI[3]. 6. There is no dispute as regards the quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner. The dispute is with regard to the employer and employee relationship. The accident occurred during the course of employment of the deceased. The Commissioner after taking into consideration the evidence and material on record held that the deceased were engaged by M/s. Bashaiah & Sons Company to work in Venkateshwara Construction Works and therefore, there was an employer and employee relationship between the deceased and the owner and that the accident occurred during the course of their employment. Though the appellant contended that there was no such relationship between the owner and the deceased at the time of accident, it he has not produced any piece of evidence to prove the same. Further, the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant have no application to the present facts of the case. Therefore, the insurer and the owner are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the dependants. 7. Hence, I do not find any merit in the appeals and the same are, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:10.02.2011. sj [1] 2005(6)ALT 610 [2] 2005(3) ALT 33 [3] (2007) 11 SCC 668