Heard Mr. Ch. Venkata Narayana, learned counsel representing Mr v. Vcnkata Rami Reddy

2. Sri Ch. Rajeshwar, Age Major, Occ Owner of Jgep- (!e1O Trax) bearing No' AP 25 B 6201, S/o. C-h. Ramulu, Rl/o. H.No. 1-9-12, Subash Road, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. ...RESPONDENTS l.A. NO: 3 OF 2012(CMAMP. NO: 2202 oF 2012) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including execution proceedings in pursuance of the Order passed in WC No 259t2OO3, dated 29.05.2012 on the file of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation of Labour, Nizamabad' Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. V VENKATARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANTL KUMAR JUKANTI CTVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.168 OF 2Ol4 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellarteous appeal is filed aggrieved by order dated 29.O5.2O12 passecl in W.C.No.259 of 2OO3 NF on the hle of the Commissicner for Employee's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour at Nizamabad.

2. Heard Mr. Ch. Venkata Narayana, learned counsel representing Mr. V. Vcnkata Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant. No rcprcsentation on behalf of respondent No. I /applicant. Appeal pertains to 2014, this Court is not inclined to adjounl thc matter and is being decided on ments.

3. Appellant herein is Opposite Party No'2-lnsurance Company, respondent No.1 herein is applicant arrd respondent No.2 hcrein rs Opposite Party No.1-Owner of the vehicle- Parties hcrein are referred to as arrayed before Commissioner of Labour. ) !AK, J ( .tt.- .\n) lL8 2AI1

4. Applicant liled an application under Sec ion 22 of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for shor.t .the Act, 1923J against Opposite parties, claiming a comp,rnsation of Rs.5,O0,O0O/- on account of injuries sustair ed in an accident occurred on 10. 10.20O 1 . 5 was a Applicant is a resident of Kamareddy, NiziLrrabad He Tempo Trax driver, bearing No.Ap 1]5_U_6201, Opposite Party No.l is the orvner of the vehiclr. Applicant met with an accident on 10. I0.200i, u,hen veh cle turned turtle, he sustained injuries on left chest arr r! right leg. Applicant was treated b1, a Doctor (Privatc I)r actitioner). On 12. 10.2OO2, (Dr.V. Akhilesh), Civil Assisranr S,_rrgecn, Government Hospital, Kamaredrlv, examined rlrl applicalt and after verilication of the medica_l records, i s sessed the permanent partial disability at 4S<N).

6. It is the specific case of the Opposite ljart,,, No.2_ Insurance Company that applicant did not possiss a 'alid driving licence to drive a lransport vehicle as ()]r ihc date of accident. It is further the case that Commissrcner er-red in relying upon the disability certificate issuecl b1 L octor, rvho 3 JAK, J C.M.I No 168 20la examined the applicant after one month, as such, he is not the competent doctor to issue disability certificate. It is also the case that licence was rener.r,ed on 30.10.2006, after the accident. 7 . lrarned Counsel appearing for the appellant/ Opposite No.2-lnsurance Companv submitted that Tempo Trax is a transport vehicle, applicant is not entitled to any benefits as he was not possessing a valid driving licence as on date of accident. It is further submitted that the applicant did not sustain injuries during the course of employment and not entitled for any compensation. It is also submitted that the principle of Master and Servant relationship does not exist betn,een the applicant arrd the owner of vehicle.

8. It is further submitted that the Doctor, who examined the applicant, issued disability certihcate after a month of the accident. Hence, the ccrtificate issued cannot be considered to be a valid certilicate. It is contended that wages considered by Commissioner and computing the compensation is not correct, AS no documentary proof of 1 i.4L J ! lt I |o l6l )011 salary claimed was not being paid to the app ir:ant. It is lastly submitted that Commissioner erred irr au.arding higher compensation.

9. During the course of proceedings b,:fore the Commissioner, AWs.l and 2 were examin:<l .rs eye witnesses and Exs.Al to A5 were marked. On beha.lf ol Opposite Parties, RWs. I and 2 were examined as wilnesses and Exs.B I -an Insurance policy, B2_a certilie 1 copy of Tramsport Driving Licence (va.lid upto 14.10.2J2O) were marked, Ex. C 1 - Driving License issued b1 Add itional Licensing Authority, Nizamabad is also marked 10 considering of the evidence on recorcr, cc urmissioner arrived at a compensation of Rs.2,05,574 / , as the applicant sustained multiple injuries. Aggrievecl. the present appeal is filed by the insurer.

11. It is observed from the order dated 29.05.2012 that on 10.10.2O01, the applicant u,as taking rhe sratf rrl AF TRANSCO, NPDCL, in a Tempo Trax bearing \ r.AI) 25_8, 620I to Nerai, Durgam, Chadmal, Naglur li r aLrending 5 JAK. J L.M A No lb8 2011 Electrical Consumer Meetings. At Neral Thanda, the applicant, who was driving the vehicle, lost control over the vehicle, when a buffalo carne across the road, due to which, the vehicle turned turtle and accident occurred' The applicant sustained injuries on left chest and right leg' Vehicle had an Insurance Policy (Ex.A4) and the validity of the Insurance was from 21-06.200| to 20.06'2002, Insurance Policy covers none of the risks to employees'

12. Dr. V. Akhilesh, Doctor (AW.2) who certified the disability of the applicarlt to an ertent of 457o u'as examined at length by Opposite Party No.2 (lnsurance Company)' Evidence of the doctor remained un-rebutted and nothing was blicited to disbelieve the evidence of AW.2 to be false' It was also contended that risk of the applicant/driver was not covered under the Insurance Policy for payment of compensation, as the driver rvas not eligible to drive a transport vehicle. In the cross examination of RW'2-Junior Assistant, Office of RTA, Nizamabad, i.e., it was admitted that the driver was not disqualified from driving a transport vehicle. 6 J,.IK, J ( t1.; .\to t66 20lr

13. It is observed from the order of Commissicner that the drrving licence was va-lid up to 14. 1O.2O2O. t, perusal of trx.82 - certified copy of transport driving licenc: discloses that it is vatid r-rp to 14.|O.2O2O.

14. Hontrle Apex Court in case of Gotta Rc{anna and. Others a. Ditrisional Mq.nager and. anotht:r r held as foilou,s: " IO. Undcr the scheme of the Act, the Worknren s Compensation Commissioner is the last autho.itv ,rn facts. Parliamcnt has thought it frt to restri,ct ;; ::, ;. ol the appeal only to substantial questions of l:riv, leins a welfare legislation. Unfortun"t"ty, tt i gt Court has rnissed this crucial question of f ir,, la jurisdictron and has ventured to reappreciate .he evidence ancl recorded its oun finding" or_,0"....,,,n" oI drsabilitl for which a]so there is no'tasis.'ffr" ir.ri; exercisc made by the High Court is .rot *ltt l,-l ,i " com_petence of the High Court under Section 30 o . Act." " "

15. The contentions raised do not give rise to a rluestion of law, this Court is not inclined to disturb the fin:l nss ^r rr-'o Commissioner, the linal fact finding authority. i6. Contentions raised by learned Stzrnclrru Counsel apl)carlng on behalf of the Insurance Co r-. pan1, '20l7(t)scc45 7 JAK J C-ll.A l''o t63 201t answered on the basis of record and also on the evidence recorded during the enquiry in W.C.No.259 of 20O3. On considering the findings recorded by Commissioner in W.C.No.259 of 2003 and the record, this Court is of the opinion that the civil miscellaneous appeal is devoid of merits, is Iiable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous applications pcnding, if any, shalI stand closed. 4d\?-PADMANABHA REDDY DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,,TRUE COPY" ECTION OFFICER To, 'llil,Tffi ':i.ff 'rl"o'",?:-ffi ?xlf llfl ,i.?]Ti+if'J"i:i Nizamabacl' HililF;. ctmpensation and Deputv comn 2. One CC to SRt' V VENKATARAMI REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD CoPies f PK-/PSL (v HIGH COURT DATED:0510312025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.168 of 2014 h ' '-' .'ltt' ., r € o ';. I 'j !) ig[tI M \ \__.--,_-_ ,',/ t/./ CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL IS DISMISSED rtco P!"f, w_ -d{a'