IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.150 OF 2008 Between : The New India Assurance Company Ltd., .... APPELLANT A N D Sri Juthaka Penta Rao and another …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.150 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, ‘the Act’) is directed against the order, dated 10.08.2007 in W.C.No.52 of 2005 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle No.1, Visakhapatnam, whereby a compensation of Rs.1,22,219/- was awarded to the applicant as against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident. 2. The appellant herein is opposite party No.2 and the respondent No.1 herein is the applicant and respondent No.2 herein is opposite party No.1 in W.C.No.52 of 2005. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the W.C. before the Court below. 3. The learned Assistant Commissioner of Labour in his impugned order, granted compensation of Rs.1,22,219/- observing that the applicant sustained injuries during the course of employment and fastened liability against the appellant/Opposite Party No.2 and respondent No.2 /Opposite party No.1. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that that opposite party No.1 filed his affidavit wherein he stated that the applicant/injured is not an employee and there is no relationship of employer and employee and therefore, the Commissioner ought not to have fastened liability and that it is not liable to pay compensation. 5. To discharge the main issue it has to be seen whether the applicant is working under Sri .B.Kanaka Rao at the time of the accident. According to his chief affidavit, he never appointed and engaged the injured as a driver of the auto. The offending auto belongs to him. His father is the driver of the said auto. During the course of examination he categorically admitted that on 08.08.2005 at 11.30 hours the offending auto involved in the accident and he saw the injured in the hospital. It is a clear admission on behalf of owner of the auto that his auto was involved in the accident and at that time, the injured was the driver of the said auto. Even though this witness denied that there was no relationship of employer and employee between him and the injured, his admissions narrated in his affidavit, would clearly speaks that the injured was driver of the offending auto ate the time of the accident. Unless, this witness permitted and authorized, the injured would not have drove the vehicle at the time of accident. When the owner of the vehicle admitted the involvement of the vehicle at the time of the accident his other evidence before the Court is only an after thought to evade his liability. Therefore, the findings of the Commissioner observing that the injured is working under R.W.1 at the time of accident is sustainable. Accordingly, there are no grounds to interfere with the order. 6. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J MARCH 28, 2011 YVL