IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.Nos.86 OF 2009 &151 of 2005 C.M.A.No.86 OF 2009 Between: The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Kadapa. …Petitioner A n d Changarapu Ramulla and two others …Respondents A N D C.M.A.No.151 of 2005 Between: The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Chinnachowk, Kadapa. …Petitioner A n d Gunipati Narasimha Raju and two others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.Nos.86 OF 2009 &151 of 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT: C.M.A.No.86 of 2009 is directed against the award dated 25.04.2008 in W.C.No.93 of 2004, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa, wherein the said claim application filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein was allowed-in-part awarding compensation of Rs.2,75,689/-. 2. C.M.A.No.151 of 2005 is directed against the award dated 24.08.2004 in W.C.No.10 of 2004, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa, wherein the said application filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein was allowed-in-part awarding compensation of Rs.2,77,357/- 3. As both the appeals arise out of the same accident and involve common question of law and fact, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents in both the appeals. Perused the record. 5. The applicants in W.C.No.93 of 2004 are parents of deceased Sri Sreenivasulu @ Sreenu who was a cleaner on the tipper bearing No.AP 09 X 1728 and died in the accident that occurred on 07.12.2003 in the course of employment. According to the applicants, on that day, the deceased attended to duties on the tipper at Mangampeta mines and while the vehicle was coming from the upper bench to the lower bench, on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver, the vehicle overturned and fell down from a height of 30 feet, as a result of which the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. A case in Cr.No.72 of 2003 of Obulavaripalli PS was registered against the driver of the tipper. The applicants further pleaded that the deceased was aged 22 years and was unmarried and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month towards wages by the time of accident. 6. The applicants in W.C.No.10 of 2004 are also parents of deceased Gunipati Varaprasad Raju @ Vikram who was employed as a cleaner on the same tipper and who also died in the same accident and in the course of employment. According to the applicants, the deceased was aged 21 years and was unmarried and was earning Rs.3,500/- per month as wages. 7. The owner of the tipper filed a counter in W.C.No.93 of 2004 admitting the employment of the deceased Sreenivasulu as a cleaner of the tipper but, however, denying his liability on the ground that the vehicle is duly insured with the appellant herein, insurer, covering the risk of employees. He, however, remained ex parte in W.C.No.10 of 2004. The appellant herein filed counters in both the cases opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 8. During enquiry, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked on behalf of the applicants in W.C.No.93 of 1994. A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked on behalf of the applicants in W.C.No.10 of 2004. R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked on behalf of the appellant in W.C.No.93 of 2004. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant herein, the insurer, in W.C.No.10 of 1994. 9. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Commissioner held that the accident occurred and the deceased died while in the course of employment. It was further held that the learned Commissioner has taken the minimum wages payable to a lorry cleaner at Rs.2,490.75 Ps per month as per G.O.Ms.No.81 dated 29.03.1981 and applying the relevant factor ‘221.37’ awarded compensation of Rs.2,75,689/- in W.C.No.93 of 1994. The learned Commissioner has taken the same minimum wage into consideration and applying the multiplying factor ‘221.71’ awarded Rs.2,77,357/-. Accordingly, awards were passed. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer filed the present appeals. 10. The evidence on record, particularly the inquest report, shows that the deceased Sreenivasulu was working as a cleaner on the tipper. The owner of the tipper also filed a counter admitting the employment of the deceased Sreenivaslu as a cleaner. It is not disputed that the authorized signatory of the company which owned the tipper gave a letter dated 28.02.2004 Ex.B-2 to the investigator of the appellant-insurer wherein it was stated that both the deceased were working as unskilled cleaners, but on 11.10.2004, the authorized signatory of the company gave another letter Ex.B-3 stating that the deceased Sreenivasulu was a cleaner, whereas the other deceased Varaprasad Raju was a helper for a machine. Thus, the employment of the deceased Sreenivasulu as a cleaner on the tipper and his death while in the course of such employment are duly established by the evidence available on record. Insofar as the other deceased viz., Varaprasad Raju is concerned, the owner of the tipper remained ex parte in W.C.No.10 of 2004. No evidence, oral or documentary, was adduced by the appellant/insurer in the said case. Ex.A-4, the salary certificate issued by the company, showed that the deceased was employed by the company as a cleaner. Thus, the material on record shows that the other deceased Varaprasad Raju was also employed by the company and he also died in the course of such employment. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer is that the policy Ex.B-1 covers the risk in respect of one driver and one cleaner and so the appellant is not liable to satisfy both claims. 11. A perusal of the policy shows that apart from third party liability, the risk of two employees is also covered by payment of separate additional premium of Rs.50/- and the risk of one non-fare paying passenger is also covered by payment of additional premium of Rs.75/-. Ex.B-1 does not specify that the risk of one driver and one cleaner are covered. As the policy Ex.B-1 shows that the risk in respect of two employees is covered and the deceased in both cases being the employees and their death having occurred in the course of employment, the appellant/insurer is liable for payment of compensation in both cases. There is no dispute regarding the age of the two deceased and the multiplying factor applied by the learned Commissioner. The learned Commissioner has taken into consideration only the minimum wages payable to a cleaner as per G.O.Ms.No.81 dated 29.03.2001 in a sum of Rs.2,490.75 Ps per month. The impugned awards do not, therefore, call for any interference by this Court. 12. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 06th September, 2011 Lrkm