IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.165 OF 2000 BETWEEN Sri R. Pandu. …APPELLANT AND M. Upender and another. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the appellant: Mr. Vijay Kumar Heroor Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. B. Venkataratnam The Court made the following: - JUDGMENT: This appeal is by the claimant, who was injured in the accident in question. The claim for compensation was lodged before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Hyderabad in W.C.No.66 of 1996. Under the impugned order, the learned Commissioner granted a compensation of Rs.1,21,996/- but awarded the said amount only against the owner and disallowed the claim against the second respondent/insurance company. The appellant seeks a decree against the insurance company as well and further claims that the entire claim of Rs.1,50,000/- ought to have been allowed and seeks the disallowed amount of the claim. 2. It is the case of the claimant that while he was working as a driver on the lorry bearing No. AHT 6788 belonging to the first respondent an accident occurred on 06.11.1995 when a scooter came at a high speed and dashed against the lorry from behind. In a commotion arising therefrom, the claimant was beaten up and he suffered grievous injuries and fractures. 3. The learned Commissioner accepted the case of the claimant and also the disability on the basis of the medical record produced and marked before him under Exs.A1 to A3 as well as the treatment certificate from a private hospital at Nizamabad under Ex.A9. The learned Commissioner also accepted that the claimant was drawing a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month towards salary and that the disability certificate was duly issued after examining the claimant by Orthopedic Surgeon. Taking all the circumstances into account and by applying the statutory factor, the learned Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.1,21,996/- towards compensation. However, the learned Commissioner was of the view that the injuries suffered by the claimant were not on account of the accident but during the course of employment and ultimately passed the award against the owner-first respondent and not against the second respondent-insurance company. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has rightly argued that the very cause for the said injuries to the claimant was the accident, but for the accident there was no necessity for the claimant to stop the vehicle and get down from the vehicle resulting in serious beating to him and grievous injuries on his legs. No doubt, the claimant suffered injuries during the course of his employment but the same is caused on account of the accident, which cannot be disputed. The liability of the insurance company, therefore, very much subsists and the order of the learned Commissioner in absolving the liability of the insurance company and restricting the award only as against the owner, therefore, requires to be modified. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the award of the learned Commissioner shall stand modified by passing a decree jointly and severally against the respondents 1 and 2. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J October 23, 2009 DSK