IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.550 of 2000 Between: The National Insurance Co. Ltd. .... APPELLANT AND Karri Mahalaksmi (died) and others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. E. Venugopal Rao Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. N. V. Anantha Krishna The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is at the instance of the insurance company and the very question involved is with respect to the liability of the appellant for the compensation claimed and awarded by the Workmen’s Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, in W.C.No.135 of 1993 dated 27.11.1999. 2. Initially, the learned Commissioner decided the aforesaid case by order dated 27.11.1999 and awarded a sum of Rs.1,40,473/- and held that the owners as well as the insurance company are jointly and severally liable. Against the said order, the present appeal is filed by the insurance company. Later by further order dated 26.05.2000 the Commissioner modified the earlier order to the extent of arithmetical mistakes in calculation and the total compensation, which was fixed in the original order, did not show that the award is to the extent of 50% thereof, keeping in view, the partial disability. Therefore, the amount awarded was apportioned by 50% and award was restricted to Rs.70,186.50 ps. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that R.W.1 was examined on behalf of the appellant, who marked the policy as Ex.R1, which shows that the risk covered therein is only Rs.10,000/- per person with regard to the death or loss of two eyes, otherwise 50% of Rs.10,000/- for the personal accident cover. The aforesaid evidence of R.W.1 and the policy was noticed by the learned Commissioner at page No.4 of its order. But in the operative portion under issue No.3, the learned Commissioner held that the liability shall be joint and several. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that fixing the liability jointly and severally is erroneous and is contrary to the policy. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is well taken in view of the fact that the policy itself restricts the coverage of the risk to Rs.10,000/- in case of death or loss of two eyes and in other personal accident, 50% thereof, i.e. Rs.5,000/-. The liability of the appellant/insurance company, therefore, is to be restricted to the risk covered under the policy Ex.R1. The rest of the claim, therefore, is to be recovered jointly and severally from the owners i.e. respondents 1 and 2 in W.C.No.135 of 1993. However, the learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that the insurance company liability may be restricted to Rs.10,000/- in stead of 50% thereof and the rest of the claim shall be apportioned to the respondents 2 and 3 herein jointly and severally. So far as the compensation determined by the learned Commissioner is concerned, the same is not interfered with. 5. However, at this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant states that he has deposited the entire amount of the award at the time of filing this appeal as required under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and in view of this order, he may be permitted to withdraw the balance amount. The said request is ordered accordingly. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part to the extent of modifying the award by declaring that the liability of the appellant/insurance company is restricted to Rs.10,000/- out of the amount awarded, permitting it to withdraw the balance amount deposited at the time of filing this appeal, and the claimants are free to recover the balance amount of compensation from respondents 2 and 3 herein. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J October 9, 2009 DSK