JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation Act and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Narsapuram, West Godavari District (hereinafter called as “the Commissioner”), in W.C.No.05 of 2010 dated 05.11.2014. 2. The insurer of the lorry bearing No.AP 16T 2057 belonging to the 6th respondent herein is the appellant. The respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein are the applicants. 3. Respondent Nos.1 to 5/applicants herein filed the said W.C. claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of Sri Sai Adinarayana (hereinafter called as “the deceased”), who died in an accident that occurred on 15.03.2010 during the course of his employment. They stated in the application before the Commissioner that the deceased was employed as a loading and unloading worker by the 6th respondent on his lorry bearing No.AP 16 T 2057. On 15.03.2010, while returning from Razole after loading coconuts in the said lorry, near Coconut Mini Hospital, Narasapur, at about 12.00 p.m the driver of the lorry dashed the stationed lorry to avoid dashing of the car, which was coming in opposite direction. As a result of which, the deceased sustained severe injuries. Immediately he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Palakol, for treatment, where he was declared as died. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 40 years and earning Rs.4,000/- p.m including batta. The appellant being the insurer and the 6th respondent herein being the owner of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 4. Counter was filed by the insurer/appellant denying all the contentions of the applicants and also denied the employment of the deceased with the 6th respondent; that there is no employer and employee relationship; that the deceased was died not due to negligent driving of the driver of the lorry; that the deceased was a Jattu coolie working at Uma Coconuts, Narasapur and that non-joinder of Uma Coconuts as a party to this case is bad in law and prayed to dismiss the application. 5. The 6th respondent/owner also filed counter disputing the material averments and further he did not admit the employment of the deceased, the deceased was a workman within the meaning of the Act, the occurrence of the accident, the narration of accident, workman sustained injuries during the course and out of his employment and the wages of the deceased. 5. The 6th respondent/owner also filed counter disputing the material averments and further he did not admit the employment of the deceased, the deceased was a workman within the meaning of the Act, the occurrence of the accident, the narration of accident, workman sustained injuries during the course and out of his employment and the wages of the deceased. He also denied the negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. The amount of compensation claimed by the appellant is highly excessive and exorbitant. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the application. 6. The Commissioner settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material : 1. Whether the deceased Mr.Sai Adinarayana met with an accident on 15.03.2010 and died during the course and out of his employment as loading and unloading worker on lorry bearing No.AP 16 T 2057 in the employment of the OP-1? 2. If yes, who are liable to pay compensation to the Applicants? And; 3. What is the amount of compensation entitled by the Applicants? 7. In the course of enquiry, AW.1 and AW.2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf of the appellant/insurer, R.W.2 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked. On behalf of the 6th respondent, he himself was examined as RW.1 and no documents were marked. 8. On the material, the Commissioner held that the deceased died in an accident during the course and out of his employment under the 6th respondent and as the policy was in force at the time of accident, directed the appellant and respondent No.6 herein to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.3,68,340/- by way of demand draft drawn in favour of Commissioner of Employees Compensation and the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Eluru, West Godavari District, within thirty days from the date of receipt of that order, failing which the applicants are entitled for interest at 12% p.a. on the amount of compensation from the date of the default of payment. It is further ordered that if they fail to deposit the compensation amount within the stipulated time, they shall be liable for 50% penalty on the above compensation amount together with simple interest per annum under Section 4(A) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. 9. It is against the said order, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the insurer. 10. 9. It is against the said order, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the insurer. 10. Heard Sri K.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A.Veera Swamy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5. 11. Now, the following points arise for determination: 1. Whether the deceased was a workman as stated in the application ? 2. Whether the deceased met with an accident on 15.03.2010 and died during and in the course of employment, if so the appellant along with respondent No.6 herein are liable to pay compensation ? and 3. To what relief ? 12. POINT Nos.1 and 2: There is no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident as borne out from the record before the Commissioner. The 1st applicant, who is said to be wife of the deceased, examined as A.W.1 and stated that on 15.03.2010, the deceased went on duty for loading and unloading the coconuts on the lorry bearing No.AP 16 T 2057 at Razole and after loading, at 11.00 A.M. they returned from Razole and at 12.00 noon, when they reached near Coconut Mini Hospital, the driver of the lorry dashed against the stationed lorry in-order to avoid dashing of the car, which is coming in opposite direction. As a result, the deceased sustained injuries in the accident and brought dead to the hospital. To support those facts, Exs.A.1 to A.4 are filed i.e., F.I.R., Post-Mortem Report, Inquest Report and Charge Sheet. All these documents clearly show those facts that while the deceased returning on the lorry as loading and unloading worker, the accident occurred and initially he received injuries and he was taken to the hospital, where he declared died due to the injuries. 13. One Sai Venkateswara Rao said to be co-worker of the deceased examined as A.W.2 and stated in his evidence that since five (5) years prior to the accident, the deceased was working under the 6th respondent herein and he categorically stated in his evidence that on the instructions of the 6th respondent, himself and deceased were proceeding on the lorry bearing No.AP 16 T 2057. After loading the coconuts at Razole, at 12.00 noon, when they reached near Coconut Mini Hospital, the accident was occurred. He was cross examined at length not only by the appellant, but also the 6th respondent herein. Nothing found from his evidence to disbelieve his testimony. After loading the coconuts at Razole, at 12.00 noon, when they reached near Coconut Mini Hospital, the accident was occurred. He was cross examined at length not only by the appellant, but also the 6th respondent herein. Nothing found from his evidence to disbelieve his testimony. His evidence clearly establishes the jural relationship between the deceased and respondent No.6 herein. As well as it is found from the testimony of A.W.2 that the deceased was working under the respondent No.6 herein more than six (6) years before the date of death. To deny those facts rather to disagree the facts stated by A.W.2, no contra evidence is adduced by the appellant or the 6th respondent herein, though they have examined as R.Ws.1 and 2, except marking the policy, which is in force as on the date of the accident. 14. Considering all these facts, besides the case law in Gupta Enterprises v. Irusappan, 2004(I) LLJ 998 (Mad) (DB), in which it was held that the employer established that the workman was not at all employed. In the present case the employer/6th respondent has not come forward to produce any relevant facts or documents to deny the contention of the claimants, as well as it is settled law that the burden to prove the accident was not occurred during and in the course of employment is on the employer. Moreover, the facts narrated by the claimant speaks that the risk of the employer covers under the policy. More so, the deceased comes under the purview of Sub-Section 2 of Section 147 of the Act. Hence, the respondent No.6 herein, who is driver cum owner and insured, and the insurer/appellant are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 15. The Commissioner by evaluating the entire material placed before him, discussed threadbare and found that the deceased was a workman as loading and unloading worker on the lorry bearing No. AP 16 T 2057, which met with an accident, as a result the deceased received injuries and died. It clearly goes to show that the deceased was a workman and met with an accident and died during and in the course of employment as loading and unloading worker on the said lorry belonging to the 6th respondent. 16. There is no dispute regarding wages of the deceased as well as calculations mentioned by the Commissioner. It clearly goes to show that the deceased was a workman and met with an accident and died during and in the course of employment as loading and unloading worker on the said lorry belonging to the 6th respondent. 16. There is no dispute regarding wages of the deceased as well as calculations mentioned by the Commissioner. Therefore, the Commissioner had calculating the wages as per the formula as envisaged in the Workmen’s Compensation Act and arrived at a figure of Rs.3,68,340/-, which is liable to be paid by the appellant as well as the 6th respondent herein jointly and severally. The Commissioner after duly considering the material on record passed the order and nothing found in the appeal warrants interference of this Court. Thus, these points are answered in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 5 and against the appellant herein. 17. POINT No.3: In view of the findings on point Nos.1 and 2, this civil miscellaneous appeal is liable to be dismissed. 18. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation Act and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Narsapuram, in W.C.No.05 of 2010 dated 05.11.2014. The balance amount, if any, in deposit payable to the respondent Nos.1 to 5(applicants) herein shall be released by the Commissioner without insisting for any security. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. 20. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.