THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.A. No. 917 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the insurance company against the order dated 31.08.2001 in W.C.No.316 of 1997 in granting compensation of Rs.1,12,320/-. The application was filed by the claimant alleging that on 04.02.1997 when the claimant was traveling as labourer on the lorry bearing No.25T5253 for loading and unloading purposes, near Narsimha Swamy gutta due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver, he received injuries and claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The appellant herein resisted the claim contending that the claimant was not a labourer employed on the lorry and that there is no coverage of the policy. However, after considering the evidence of the claimant and also the doctor, the lower Tribunal has granted the above compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the First Information Report lodged by the owner clearly goes to show that one Mohd.Daulat, who was engaged the lorry for transporting the watermelon and two labourers by name Shaik Farooq and Shaik Noor Mohammed, who were traveling at that time. According to him, the name of the present claimant is not mentioned. Therefore, the claimant is not a labourer. It was also further contended that as per the terms of the policy, there is no coverage for the risk of the labourers and the evidence of R.W.1 clearly goes to show that though it is a comprehensive policy no additional premium was paid for the coverage of the risk for the labourers. However, the lower Tribunal found that though the appellant has taken a plea that there was no employer and employee relationship, no material is placed contradicting the evidence of the claimant. However, the lower Tribunal has not taken into consideration the complaint given by the owner of the vehicle itself marked as Ex.A-1, which discloses that the labourers are different. The lower Tribunal also has not summoned the owner of the vehicle to show that whether factually the claimant was employed by him or not, when there is a serious dispute and the FIR Ex.A-1 shows a fact in favour of the appellant. The lower Tribunal also has not considered the claim of the appellant that the policy is not covered and granted the compensation as if there is a valid binding policy on the appellant. Therefore, the award passed by the lower Tribunal requires to be re- considered after taking further evidence to prove both the facts i.e. whether the claimant was employed as a labourer and whether there is coverage of the risk in order to make the appellant liable for payment of the compensation. Accordingly, the order of the lower Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower Tribunal for fresh enquiry after giving opportunity to both the parties. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 26-08-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.A.No. 917 of 2011 DATE: 26-08-2011 MR