THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A No.2340 of 1998 JUDGMENT: One Sri Inkollu Venkateswara Reddy, husband of respondent No.1, father of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and son of respondent No.4, was employed with respondent No.5 in a granite quarry. On 25.10.1993, a proclain that was being used in the quarry passed through explosive dump and in the resultant explosion, Venkateswara Reddy and certain others died. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 ﬁled W.C. Case No.33 of 1994 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Ongole claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. The proclain was insured with the appellant. Respondent No.5 and the appellant herein were shown as opposite parties. It was pleaded that the deceased was aged 32 years and was drawing Rs.1500/- to Rs.2,000/- per month depending on the work. Respondent No.5 ﬁled a counter admitting the fact that the deceased was employed with it and that he died in the course of employment and on account of operation of proclain. It was further pleaded that the proclain was insured with the appellant. The Commissioner passed an order, dated 16.03.1998, awarding a sum of Rs.51,440/- as compensation. The order passed by the Commissioner is challenged in this appeal ﬁled under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (for short ‘the Act’). Smt.S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the obligation for the appellant to pay compensation would have arisen if only the deceased was employed as a driver or cleaner on the proclain and died in the course of employment. She contends that the deceased was not employed to work on the proclain and that there was no basis for the Commissioner to fasten the liability upon the appellant. It is also pleaded that in a batch of appeals that arose out of the same explosion, one of it being C.M.A.No.2378 of 1998, a learned Judge of this Court took the view that the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation under the Act. None appears for the respondents. The death of the deceased occurred in an explosion caused by the improper handling of the proclain. It is a matter of record that the said vehicle was insured with the appellant. The ﬁnding recorded by the Commissioner that the death of the deceased occurred in the course of employment is not seriously disputed. As a matter of fact, respondent No.5, the employer, ﬁled a counter admitting the fact that the deceased was employed with it and that he died in the course of employment. The whole controversy is as to the liability of the appellant to pay the compensation. The occasion for an Insurer of a vehicle to pay compensation under the Act arises, if only the deceased or injured was employed to work on the vehicle, be it as driver or as cleaner. Admittedly, the deceased was not employed either as driver or cleaner. It is not as if that the claim was not maintainable at all. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 were certainly entitled to claim compensation from the employer, respondent No.5 herein. However, there was no basis for the Commissioner in fastening the liability upon the appellant. At the same time, respondent Nos.1 to 4 are not without any remedy vis-à-vis the appellant. While dealing with the identical matter in C.M.A.No.2378 of 1998, this Court in its order, dated 24.11.2006, held that the claimants in such cases would be entitled to work out their remedies under the Motor Vehicles Act. In fact, the plea of the appellant in that case was that the dependents of the deceased have a remedy against the appellant as well as the owner under the Motor Vehicles Act. The contention was accepted by this Court. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the order, dated 16.03.1998, passed in W.C. Case No.33 of 1994 in so far as it has fastened the liability upon the appellant is set aside. It shall remain against respondent No.5. The remedy provided for under the Motor Vehicles Act is a social security measure. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 appear be from a very poor background as is evident from the fact that they did not even enter appearance in this appeal. Their poverty should not be a factor to defeat their statutory rights. The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Ongole to whom a copy of this order shall be marked, shall take necessary steps to contact respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein and ensure that an O.P. under the Motor Vehicles Act is presented for compensation on account of the death of late Venkateswara Reddy. If they are not in a position to pay the requisite Court fee, necessary arrangement shall be made and the amount so paid from the funds of the Legal Services Authority may be deducted after the compensation is awarded. In the O.P., that may be ﬁled, the appellant and respondent No.5 shall be made as parties and it shall not be open to them to deny their liability on any ground whatever. The O.P. shall be disposed of on its own merits. It is also made clear that the prohibition contained under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not operate in this case, since the claim made under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is not in the capacity of the deceased as an employee, to work on a motor vehicle. In case the appellant herein has parted with any amount to satisfy the order passed by the Commissioner, it shall be open to it to recover the amount from respondent No.5. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:24.11.2011. kdl