THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 4295 of 2003 J U D G M E N T: The appellant Insurance company has preferred this appeal, aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2003 in W.C.No. 93 of 2002 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour-III, Hyderabad. Respondents 1 to 3 filed the above W.C. claiming compensation under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, for the death of Sri B. Vaman Rao @ Subash (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) against the employer of the deceased i.e. owner of the auto trolley bearing No. AP 28 T 9118, the 4th respondent herein, and the insurer of the vehicle, the appellant herein. According to them, the deceased was getting Rs.3,500/- per month as wages and he was aged about 42 years at the time of accident. Hence, they claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. Respondent No.4 filed a counter-affidavit admitting the employment of the deceased as a driver on the auto trolley bearing No. AP 28T 9118 at the time of accident. He contends that since the auto trolley was insured with the appellant herein, he is not liable to pay the compensation. The appellant herein also filed a counter-affidavit in the W.C. He denied the employer and employee relationship between Respondent No.4 and the deceased. It further urged that the deceased was a habitual drinker and on the day of the alleged incident, he consumed liquor and fell down in an inebriated condition, due to which he sustained injuries and thereafter, succumbed to them and the panchas also opined that the deceased died of consuming liquor and for not having enough food for two days. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the deceased workman lat Sri B. Vaman Rao met with an accident on 20.09.2002 while driving the auto trolley bearing No. AP 28 T 9118 and died in the accident, which arose out of and in course of his employment with the 1st opp. Party? (2) If yes, who are liable to pay compensation to the applicants? And; (3) What is the amount of compensation entitled by the applicants? During trial, the claimants examined the wife of the deceased as A.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A6. Respondent No.4 herein was examined as R.W.1. On behalf of the Insurance Company, Ex. D1 insurance policy was marked. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was in the employment of the 4th respondent on the auto trolley bearing No. AP 28T 9118 and was on duty on 20.09.2002. A.W.1, the wife of the deceased deposed that her husband died during the course of employment in the accident. In support of their claim, they got marked Ex.A1, First Information Report in Crime No. 110 of 2002 on the file of Shamsheergunj Police Station, which reveals that the body of the deceased was found at Ansari road on 21.09.2002, Ex.A2, certified copy of the inquest report and Ex.A3, Post Mortem report. Though the learned counsel for the insurance company argued that the deceased died due to heavy consumption of alcohol, the P.M. Certificate, marked as Ex.A3 revealed that the deceased died of head injury and due to influence of alcohol at the time of death, but it does not mention that the abdomen is empty and there was no abnormal smell. Therefore, keeping all these aspects in mind, the Tribunal held that it cannot be said that the deceased died due to consumption of alcohol and therefore, held that the appellant herein and the 4th respondent are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation and that Respondents 1 to 3 are entitled to be paid the compensation at Rs.2,33,360/-. Heard Smt. Y. Aruna, learned Standing counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and Smt. A. Chayadevi, learned counsel for Respondents 1 to 3. The relationship of the 4th respondent and the deceased as employer and employee is not in dispute. As far as liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation is concerned, it is contended that the deceased died due to heavy consumption of liquor and for not taking food for the past two days prior to the date of death. P.M. Certificate marked as Ex.A3 clearly revealed that the deceased died of head injury and due to influence of alcohol at the time of death, but it does not mention that the abdomen is empty and there was no abnormal smell. Further, the evidence of A.W.1 and R.W.1 is silent about consumption of liquor by the deceased. Therefore, it has to be held that the deceased died during the course of employment with the 4th respondent and since the auto trolley was insured with the appellant insurance company, the contention of the appellant herein that he is not liable to pay the compensation, cannot be accepted. There is no substantial question of law in this appeal and hence, it is dismissed. No costs. ---------------------------------- GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 28th January 2011 ksld