THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.Nos.951, 952 and 987 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 02.05.2005, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Commissioner’) in W.C.Nos.32, 33 and 34 of 2002 filed by the dependants claiming compensation. The dependants pleaded that on 14.11.2001, at about 4.30 PM, while Ch.Nancharaiah, S.Janaki Rao and B.Sundar Rao and other labourers were unloading the marble stones at Road No.12, Banjara Hills, suddenly the marble stones fell upon them, due to which, said Nancharaiah, Janaki Rao and B. Sundar Rao died on the spot, 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 payable by the insurer and the owner, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order, failing which, the dependants are entitled to 12% interest per annum from the date of accident till deposit of amount awarded. Disputing the relationship of employer and employee, the appellant-insurer filed the present appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer contended that as the driver of the lorry engaged the deceased on payment of an amount of Rs.100/-, there was no employer and employee relationship between the deceased and the owner. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment of this Court in AKULA SURYANARAYANA @ SURIBABU v. PEDDIBOINA VENKATA MOHAN[1] wherein it was held as under: “To contradict the version of the appellant, the first respondent filed Ex.R-1, wages Register from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.1996 and Ex.R2, the Attendance register; for the same period. These registers were not referred to, in the counter filed by him to the claim. The registers do not contain the signature of the person, who maintained it, much less that of any government Officer, a perusal of the same discloses that the entries for 12 months were written, by the same person, at a time. One important aspect, which needs to be taken into account is that the first respondent, as R.W.1, admitted that he received a notice addressed by the appellant, and that he has not chosen to issue any reply. The answer given by him for not replying to the notice is vague and inconsistent. It is not as if the appellant hailed from a different place and his whereabouts were not known. The appellant and the respondents hail from the same village. Having regard to the evidence on record, it can clearly be stated that the appellant was employed with the respondents. The Commissioner insisted on proof ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, as to the existence of relationship of employer and employee. Proof of such a degree is required in criminal cases and not in those under social or beneficial legislations. His approach does not accord with the scheme of the Act. 5. Learned counsel for the dependants contended that on the instructions of the site owner, the site Engineer instructed the deceased and other labourers to unload the marble stones and therefore, the insurer and the owner are liable to pay compensation to the dependants. 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 having held that there is no rebuttal evidence in favour of the insurer and the owner to prove that the deceased were engaged by the driver of the lorry at the time of the incident, awarded compensation to the dependants. Though the appellant contended that there was no employer and employee relationship between the owner and the deceased, as the owner of the lorry was a resident of Mandhya Pradesh, he has not produced any piece of evidence to prove the same, except the evidence of A.W.2-co-labourer, who has stated that the driver of the lorry employed him. But, Ex.A2-inquest report in W.C.No.32 of 2002 shows that the site owner Sultan Mohiuddin instructed the site engineer by name Aneesuddin to bring a load of marble stones and thereby, on the instructions of the site engineer, the deceased and other labourers were engaged and started unloading the marble stones and due to sudden fall of the said stones, the deceased died. It shows that the driver of the lorry had not engaged them at any point of time. 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: 19.08.2010 sj [1] 2006-ACJ-1526