Therefore the O.P.1 being the employer and owner of the vehicle and the O.P.2 being the insurer of the vehicle are hereby directed to deposit jointly and severally Rs.2,11,659/ Rupees two lakhs eleven thousand six hundred and fifty nine only towards companypensation payable to the applicants by way of demand draft drawn in favour of the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation and Deputy companymissioner of Labour, Eluru within 30 days from the date of receipt of this orde.
Claiming a sum of Rs.3 lakhs by way of companypensation, a petition before the Commissioner of Workmens Compensation in terms of the 1923 Act was filed against Smt.
An appeal preferred thereagainst before the High Court has been allowed by reason of the impugned judgment holding that numberAward companyld be passed against the insurer by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation.
The companytention raised by the 1st respondent before the Commissioner under 1923 Act was that as the deceased and the owner of the tractor were husband and wife, the question of there being a relationship of employer and employee between them did number arise and in that view of the matter, the deceased was number a workman within the meaning of the provisions of Section 2 n of the 1923 Act.
Gottumukkala Venkata Lakshmi, the owner of the tractor, and the insurer herein.
Despite the fact that numbercontract of employment was brought on records, the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation proceeded to calculate the amount of companypensation payable under the 1923 Act in terms of a purported Notification dated 27.7.2000 fixing minimum wages for the drivers of light vehicles.
The age of the deceased was found to be 41 years at the time of his death.
According to the claimants, the deceased was earning about Rs.3,000/ per month towards salary and Rs.25/ as Bata per day.
Interpretation of Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for short, 1988 Act falls for companysideration in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 23/7/2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Appeal Against Order No.2720 of 2003, holding that numberAward companyld be passed against the insurer in the proceeding under the provisions of Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 1923 Act, for short .
9771 of 2004 B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
Arising out of S.L.P. C No.
Before adverting to the question involved in this appeal, we may numberice the factual matrix obtaining herein.
AP 37P 3717 belonged to Smt.
