HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.NO. 170 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, is directed against the order dated 27.10.2003 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Cuddapah (for short ‘the Court below’) in WC No. 39 of 2002 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- for the death of one S.A. Firoz Basha in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 17.7.2002 at about 4.30 PM, when the deceased was employed by the first respondent (OP-I) as a driver on his lorry bearing No. PY 01 K 8132 for loading the black shabad slabs from Tadipatri to Maharastra and when they reached near Jangampalli of Biknoor Police limits, a lorry came from opposite direction with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, and the driver of the lorry bearing No. PY 01 K 8132, to avoid accident, controlled the lorry but both the vehicles colluded and dashed each other and due to which, the deceased died on the spot. First respondent owner of the lorry remained ex parte and the second respondent- insurer of the vehicle also field its counter denying the allegations made in the petition. 2. The Commissioner held that the workman/employee died during the course of his employment, and therefore, the first respondent as the employer and owner of the vehicle, and the insurer of the vehicle are liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. The Commissioner also taking into consideration the evidence available on record, granted total compensation of Rs. 4,23,580/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of accident till the date of payment. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the applicant-failed to prove the employer-employee relationship by examining the first respondent (OP-1) and the learned Commissioner erroneously considered the age of the deceased as 28 years when the age of the deceased according to Postmortem report is 32 years. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that as far as the quantum of compensation is concerned the order of the Tribunal is quite reasonable and there is no need to interfere with the order 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. 6. It is evident from the record that the accident occurred during the course of employment when the deceased on the instructions of the owner went for loading the black shabad slabs from Tadipatri to Maharastra, and when he reached near Jangampalli of Biknoor, a lorry came in opposite direction and to avoid accident, he controlled the lorry but both the lorries colluded each other and as a result of which, the deceased died on the spot. The Commissioner taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the G.O.Ms. No. 81 dated 29.3.2001, computed the wages at Rs. 4,299/- per month. But as per rule 31-A of Andhra Pradesh Motor Transport Workers Rules, 1963 with reference to G.O.Ms.No. 12 dated 11.3.1996 relating to batta, the Commissioner assessed the wages at Rs. 4,000/- per month and applied the relevant factor 211.79 for the age of 28 years and awarded Rs. 4,23,580/- (211.79 x 50/100 x 4000 = 4,23,580) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of accident till the date of payment. The order passed by the Commissioner is quite reasonable and based on the facts available on record. Therefore, I see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner and the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 24.2.2011 KA