THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.640 OF 2004 DATED: 27-11-2009 Between: The United Insurance Company Limited, Rep., by its Divisional Manager, Basheerbagh X Roads, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT-OPPOSITE PARTY No.2 And B.Sailu & 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 30-12-2003, in W.C.No.6 of 2002 on the file of the Commissioner for the Workmen’s Compensation and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Rangareddy District, Hyderabad, wherein the claim of the respondents herein was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.1,88,057/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the petition. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the claim application seeking compensation on account of the death of the deceased- Yadagiri @ Yadaiah, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 05-07-1998. The applicants are the parents of the deceased. According to them, the deceased was working as a driver on Krishi Power Tiller bearing No.AP 9U-2428 and was employed by the 3rd respondent herein and that on the date of the accident at about 6.30 a.m., a lorry bearing No.ADM-5267 coming from Badangpet towards Nadergul, driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed against the Power Tiller resulting in the death of the deceased on the spot. A case in Cr.No.212 of 1998 was registered against the driver of the lorry. It is stated that the deceased was aged 22 years by the date of the accident. 4. The 3rd respondent herein-owner of the Krishi Power Tiller filed a counter admitting that the deceased was the workman employed by him and also admitting the accident resulting in the death of the deceased. According to him, the deceased was paid Rs.70/- per day. 5. The appellant-insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation, inter alia, contending that the deceased was none else than the brother of the owner of the vehicle i.e., opposite party No.1 and there is no relationship of employee and employer between them and also further contending that the deceased was not having any valid driving licence. 6. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked on behalf of the applicants. The owner of the vehicle and opposite party No.1 was examined as R.W.1 and examined R.W.2 on behalf of the appellant-insurer and Ex.R.1- certificate of registration was filed by the opposite party No.1 and Ex.B1-copy of the policy was filed by the insurer. 7. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Commissioner held that the death of the deceased occurred on account of the accident which occurred in the course of employment. The learned Commissioner further held that the applicants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,88,433/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the insurer. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would firstly contend that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the opposite party No.1 and the deceased and secondly that the deceased was not having any valid driving licence and therefore the appellant-insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. 9. Ex.A1-First Information Report, Ex.A2-Inquest report and Ex.A4-chargesheet would go to show that the deceased was the driver of Krishi Power Tiller bearing No.AP9U-2428 and he was employed as such by the opposite party No.1. The above documents would further establish that the accident occurred during the course of such employment of the deceased by the opposite party No.1 as driver. 10. May be the deceased happened to be the brother of the opposite party No.1, the said relationship however does not rule out the possibility of the deceased being employee by his brother- opposite party No.1. In fact, in the course of the cross- examination of R.W.1, who is the employer, it was suggested on behalf of the appellant-insurer that the salary being paid to the deceased by R.W.1 was only Rs.1000/- per month but not Rs.2000/- per month as claimed. The above suggestions by necessary inference would disclose the existence of an employer and employee relationship between R.W.1-opposite party No.1 and the deceased. Whatever be the salary that was being paid to the deceased, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the deceased was in fact employed as a driver by R.W.1 to drive the power tiller. The fact that the deceased was the brother of R.W.1 is therefore of no consequence. 11. Regarding the other contention that the deceased was not having a valid driving licence, as rightly observed by the learned Commissioner, except the self-serving oral testimony of R.W.2 there is no other record produced by the appellant-insurer to show that the deceased was not having valid and effective driving licence. It is not disputed that the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector disclosed all the particulars of the driving licence of the deceased and that it was valid by the date of the accident. R.W.1-employer (opposite party No.1) also testified that the deceased was having valid driving licence. Under those circumstances, the plea of the appellant-insurer that the deceased was not having a valid driving licence remains totally unsubstantiated. 12. The quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner is not seriously disputed. The learned Commissioner has taken the wage of the deceased at Rs.1710/- per month based on the G.O.Ms.No.71, dated 16-04-1991, and taken the age of the deceased as ‘23’ as borne out by the inquest report-Ex.A2 and post mortem report-ExA3 and applying the relevant multiple factor of 219.95 and taking 50% of the wages into consideration, arrived at a sum of Rs.1,88,057/- and by adding the amount of Rs.376/- towards stamp fee, awarded total compensation of Rs.1,88,433/-, which is just and reasonable and also in accordance with law. 13. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned award does not call for any interference. 14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 27th November, 2009 Tsy