JUDGMENT : C.M.A.No.216 of 2023 has been filed under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, against the Order and Decree dated 31.07.2008 passed in W.C.No.111 of 2005 by the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa, (in short ‘the Tribunal’) whereby the Tribunal has granted a total compensation of Rs.2,53,099/- for the death of the deceased Bandi Subhadramma in the accident that was occurred on 29.01.2005. C.M.A.No.217 of 2023 has been filed under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, against the Order and Decree dated 31.07.2008 passed in W.C.No.149 of 2005 by the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa, (in short ‘the Tribunal’) whereby the Tribunal has granted a total compensation of Rs.2,53,099/- for the death of the deceased Uppatholla Ramadevi in the accident that was occurred on 29.01.2005. 2. Since the facts and issue involved in all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, I find it expedient to decide these matters by a Common Judgment. 3. The appellant herein is the 2nd opposite party; the respondents 1 to 3 herein are the applicants; 4th respondent herein is the 1st opposite party before the tribunal. 4. For the sake of convenience, C.M.A.No.216 of 2023 is taken into consideration as a leading case. 5. The claim of the respondents 1 to 3/claimants claiming compensation for the death of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 29.01.2005, which took place at tank bund, Cherukuvandlaplli Village, T.Sundupalli Mandal, Kadapa District, due to mud slide fell down on the deceased, while discharging her duties as a coolie for the Tractor under the employment of 4th respondent/1st opposite party, which is insured with the appellant herein. When the deceased was digging the earth, the big earth bounder was fallen upon them and the deceased sustained grievous injuries on their body and subsequently died. A case in Crime No.1 of 2005 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C has been registered by T. Sundupalli Police Station. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 have approached the appellant and 4th respondent with a request to pay compensation, but in vain. Hence the respondents 1 to 3 have approached the Tribunal. 6. A case in Crime No.1 of 2005 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C has been registered by T. Sundupalli Police Station. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 have approached the appellant and 4th respondent with a request to pay compensation, but in vain. Hence the respondents 1 to 3 have approached the Tribunal. 6. The appellant herein i.e2nd opposite party before the tribunal have filed counter denying all material averments made in the claim and submitted that the 4th respondent has been declared as insolvent and that there is a bar in claiming indemnification of liability from the appellant in the absence of the same as observed by the learned Commissioner. There is no iota of evidence to show that the tractor and trailor of the 4th respondent was involved in the accident, so also, there is evidence to show that the deceased was engaged as coolie by the 4th respondent, as such, the relationship of employee and employer is absent. The insurance policy issued to the subject vehicle is for agricultural purpose, but whereas the vehicle was used for transportation of manure, which is a commercial purpose. No premium amount is paid to cover the risk of the deceased or any other person, except paid only for the driver. Therefore the appellant herein is not liable to pay any amount to the respondents 1 to 3 and requested to dismiss the same. 7. Basing on the pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed the following issues viz., 1) Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923 and he was died out of and in the course of his employment under O.P.No.1 resulting into his death? 2) What was the age of the deceased at the time of accident? 3) What was the wages paid to the deceased at the time of accident? 4) What is the quantum of compensation payable to the applicants> 5) Who are liable to pay the compensation? 8. During the course of trial, the respondents 1 to 3 were examined as AW-1 and 2 and got marked Ex.A1 to A5 and none of the witnesses were examined and no documents have been marked on behalf of the appellant. 9. 8. During the course of trial, the respondents 1 to 3 were examined as AW-1 and 2 and got marked Ex.A1 to A5 and none of the witnesses were examined and no documents have been marked on behalf of the appellant. 9. The tribunal after hearing both sides directed the appellant and 4th respondent i.e opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation besides Stamp Duty within 30 days. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals came to be filed. 10. Heard Mr. K.V.Seshagiri Rao, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3. 11. During hearing learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the learned tribunal ought to have seen that the risk of the deceased was not covered as the deceased was employed as labourer and the policy did not cover the risk of the labourer. The tribunal ought to have seen that the death had occurred due to the sand falling on the deceased and not due to user of the vehicle. Therefore the appellant could not be made liable to pay the compensation. The tribunal failed to consider the argument of the appellant and simply awarded compensation is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence the impugned Award is liable to be set aside. 12. During hearing learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 reiterated the contents urged before the learned tribunal and vehemently opposed to allow the appeal and mainly contended that the appellant and 4th respondent herein are liable to pay any compensation to the respondents 1 to 3. Learned Tribunal rightly held the issues in right perspective and that the appellant is not entitled to claim any relief in this writ petition. 13. Perused the record. 14. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was died due to accident, while they were engaged as coolies to the said Tractor belonging to the 4th respondent and while on the duty, the deceased loading and unloading the mud for the said tractor trailor at tank bund, Cherukuvandlaplli Village, T.Sundupalli Mandal on 29.01.2005 due to big soil bounder was fallen upon them, as a result of which they succumbed to injuries and died. Therefore it is proved that the deceased was a coolie and was a workman. Therefore it is proved that the deceased was a coolie and was a workman. Further the learned tribunal taking into consideration of wage of the deceased as per G.O.Ms.No.81, dated 29.03.2001 employment in private motor transport for loading and unloading coolie/driver has been assessed the minimum wage at Rs. 2568.75 ps. Further the premium was collected on basic premium including covers the risk of coolies and there is a relationship between the employee and employer between the policy holder i.e 4th respondent/1st opposite party and the deceased. Therefore, there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant. 15. As could be seen from the order of the learned Tribunal would show that the ratio taken by the learned tribunal while assessing the compensation is within the parameters of the Workman’s Compensation Act, 1923. The learned Tribunal rightly assessed the value of compensation as per law and needs no interference against its order on any count and finds no impropriety or irregularity in the order. Therefore, the C.M.A is deserves to be dismissed as there are no grounds to grant excess compensation in the C.M.A. 16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and considering the submissions of the both the counsel, both C.M.As are dismissed, while permitting the appellants to withdraw the compensation amount as per their respective ratio by submitting proper application before the tribunal in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.