THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.A.NO.619 OF 2007 AND C.M.A.NOS.1293, 1356 & 1368 OF 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT:- All these appeals arise out of a common accident that has occurred on 31-08-2002 when the deceased persons and the injured were going in the vehicle bearing No.AP-28-U-5066 as labourers and employed by the owner of the vehicle, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, who also died, the compensation was claimed. The Opposite Party No.1 is said to be owner of the vehicle and the appellant herein who is the second Opposite Party is the insurer with whom the vehicle was insured. Opposite Party No.1 who is the owner of the vehicle admitted the employment of the deceased as labourers and also the nature of the incident and also the wages paid. The appellant herein contended that the incident did not happen in the manner as claimed and further there is no employer and employee relationship between the deceased and the owner of the vehicle and consequently there is no liability to grant the compensation. The lower Tribunal below after considering the evidence on record came to a conclusion that the incident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver and that the deceased persons and claimant/injured were employed and consequently granted the compensation. Aggrieved by the said award, these appeals are filed. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the award is not valid since there is no employer and employee relationship between the victims and the Opposite Party No.1? POINT:- The learned counsel for the appellant strongly contended that from the evidence available on record and also particularly Ex.A-1 First Information Report, the workmen are said to have been engaged by one Srinu and consequently they are not the employees of the owner of the vehicle and the risk is not covered. But, however, in this case the owner of the vehicle has filed a counter specifically admitting that he has employed the persons and that there was relationship of employer and employee. The First Information Report shows that about 30 labourers with a load of concrete mixture machine on the DCM van bearing No.AP28-U 5066 proceeded from Hyderabad to Mysigandi and due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver, the incident has happened. The inquest report and also the investigation done by the police shows that the driver of the vehicle Srinu was responsible for the incident. In fact, there is no plea that Srinu was not the employee of the owner, but, however it was sought to be contended that it was taken on hire by Srinu and the persons were employed by him. To prove this fact, there is no evidence and on the other hand the positive stand taken by the owner of the vehicle is that he employed the victims. Therefore, when there is no contrary evidence and a question of fact has been decided by the lower Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence, it is not a case where interference of this court is called for. So also though there are said to be 30 labourers on the lorry, the only claim was made for four persons and consequently the policy having covered the labourers and the driver of the vehicle, the Insurance Company cannot contend that it is not liable to pay the amount. Therefore, I find that there are no merits warranting interference of the decision of the lower Tribunal on a question of fact which it has arrived at. Therefore, there are no merits in these appeals and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, all appeals are dismissed. No costs. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 21-12-2011 TSNR