JUDGMENT : CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J. 1. Challenging the order dated 16.07.2013 passed by the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-IV, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commissioner’) in W.C. No. 18 of 2011, the Applicants therein filed C.M.A. No. 36 of 2014 seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Commissioner, whereas, Insurance Company filed C.M.A. No. 851 of 2013, as such, both these Appeals are taken up for disposal by this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed in C.M.A. No. 851 of 2013. 3. The facts of the case are that on the fateful day of 16.11.2010, the deceased by name Chopari Pandari @ Pandu, who was engaged as Driver on Eicher Van bearing No. AP-31U-8041, met with an accident and he succumbed to the injuries. The vehicle was insured with the appellant Insurance Company. The deceased was paid wages of Rs. 7,000/- per month. Hence, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed the afore-said W.C. claiming a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- as compensation. 4. The appellant Insurance Company filed counter denying all the averments mentioned in the W.C. 5. Before the Commissioner, respondent No. 1 examined herself as AW-1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A7. On behalf of appellant, RWs. 1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B3. 6. Though the appellant contended that the accident did not occur and the injuries suffered by the deceased were not during the course of employment, the Commissioner, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, by taking into consideration the minimum wages as per G.O.Ms. No. 90, dated 28.09.2007 with effect from 26.10.2007, awarded a sum of Rs. 6,77,831/- as compensation. 7. Originally, the vehicle was insured by respondent No. 4, whereas, the evidence adduced is to the effect that the deceased was employed by respondent No. 5. 8. Though the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no employer and employee relationship between the deceased and respondent No. 4-K. Ganapathi Reddy, in whose name the vehicle stands, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 contends that in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Santro Devi, (2009) 1 SCC 558 and Babbu Miyan and Another vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2017 ACJ 721 the insurance policy runs with the vehicle irrespective of the person, who had taken the insurance policy, as, essentially, indemnification is with respect to the loss of property; that change of ownership of the vehicle does not change the nature of employment and that the deceased-workman was engaged as Driver with respect to the subject vehicle and as long as the vehicle is insured, the policy would govern the liability. 9. Having regard to the fact that the issue is squarely covered by the judgments referred to above and considering the fact that the amount granted was following the afore-stated G.O. there is no merit in C.M.A. No. 851 of 2013, which is liable to be dismissed. 10. So far as C.M.A. No. 36 of 2014 is concerned, the only point that is urged before this Court by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 is that the minimum wage that is payable as per G.O.Ms. No. 90, dated 28.09.2007 with effect from 26.10.2007 is Rs. 7,553/- whereas, the Commissioner had taken the minimum wage payable as Rs. 4,520/-. 11. Having regard to the fact that there is a practice of giving batta to the Driver, in the interest of justice, if a sum of Rs. 520/- is added to Rs. 6,280/- wages drawn by the deceased, the wage payable comes to Rs. 6,800/- per month. Accordingly, the compensation comes to Rs. 7,31,950/- (Rs. 6,800/- x 50/100 x 215.28). 12. Hence, C.M.A. No. 851 of 2013 is dismissed and C.M.A. No. 36 of 2014 is allowed enhancing the compensation to Rs. 7,31,950/-. The enhanced amount shall be deposited within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are entitled to interest @ 12% per annum after one month from the date of accident till the date of deposit, in terms of Section 4-A(3)(a) of the Act. 13. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.