JUDGMENT : NYAPATHY VIJAY, J. 1. The present C.M.A is filed under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act , 1923 questioning the Order dated 30.06.2005 in W.C.No.126 of 2004 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. 2. The O.P.No.2-Insurance Company is the Appellant herein. 3. The facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as follows:-One N. Mahaboob Basha (hereinafter referred to as “Claimant”)was working as second driver/relief driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-02-V-3363 belonging to O.P.No.1 having National permit. On 08.09.2003, the Claimant as per the instructions of O.P.No.1/owner loaded the lorry with mangoes at Railway Kodur, Cuddapah District to go to Mumbai, which is at a distance of 1200 Kms. While proceeding towards Mumbai, when the lorry reached Malavi Bridge, the lorry was stopped for fuel and air and stationed by the side of the road. While so, another lorry bearing No.MH-12-QA-9520, which was coming from the back side, hit the lorry of O.P.No.1 due to rash and negligent driving of that lorry driver and as a result, the Claimant received fracture injuries to his legs and was admitted in Akshay Medical Foundation Hospital at Lonawala. Later, the Claimant was shifted to Government Hospital, Cuddapah for treatment. In spite of best treatment, the injuries were not cured and the Claimant became permanently disabled. 4. A criminal case was registered vide Cr.No.47 of 2003 by the Lonawala Police Station, Maharashtra State and Charge Sheet was filed by the police to that effect also. As the accident occurred in the course of employment and since the Claimant was being paid monthly wage of Rs.4,000/- per month, compensation was sought for Rs.4,00,000/- from O.P.No.1/owner. As the vehicle was insured with O.P.No.2 vide Policy bearing No.611201/31/03/02639, which was valid from 11.08.2003 to 10.08.2004, O.P.No.2-Insurance Company was arrayed as party-respondent in the claim application. 5. O.P.No.1 i.e. owner filed his counter admitting that the Claimant was working as second driver and also as cleaner. He was driving the lorry long distance from Cuddapah to Mumbai. It was also admitted that the Claimant was being paid monthly wage of Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.100/- per day as batta. 6. O.P.No.2 i.e. Insurance Company filed their counter denying the accident, involvement of the Claimant, the injuries and disability as stated by him. 7. He was driving the lorry long distance from Cuddapah to Mumbai. It was also admitted that the Claimant was being paid monthly wage of Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.100/- per day as batta. 6. O.P.No.2 i.e. Insurance Company filed their counter denying the accident, involvement of the Claimant, the injuries and disability as stated by him. 7. Based on the rival pleadings, the Commissioner framed the following issues for consideration:- 1) Whether the applicant is a workman as per the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act , 1923 and he met with accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting into disability and loss of earning capacity? 2) What was the age of the injured applicant at the time of accident? 3) What was the wages paid to the injured applicant at the time of accident? 4) What is the loss of earning capacity suffered and permanent disability percentage faced by the injured applicant? 5) What is the Quantum of compensation payable to the applicant? 6) Who are liable to pay the Compensation? 8. In the course of evidence, the Claimant was examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.7 i.e. Certified copy of F.I.R, Certified copy of Wound Certificate, Certified copy of Final Report, Office copy of legal notice, Medical Disability Certificate, Xerox copy of Driving License of applicant and Statement of Applicant respectively. In his deposition, the Claimant reiterated the averments in the claim application and requested for compensation as sought for. 9. Dr.G. Venkatasubbaiah was examined as A.W.2. He deposed that the Claimant is having deformity of leg while walking and standing and therefore he is unable to drive the vehicle. It was also deposed that the Claimant was suffering from Chronic Osteomyelitis of left tibia and that there is no permanent cure for this and artificial limb would be inevitable. A.W.2 assessed the disability of the Claimant at the rate of 60%. 10. One S. Alla Baksh, who was working as driver in the same lorry was examined as A.W.3 and he stated that the accident occurred in his presence and deposed in support of the Claimant. 11. O.P.No.1 i.e. the owner by name P. Krishna Reddy was examined as R.W.1 and he admitted to the employment, accident and the disability suffered by the Claimant. 11. O.P.No.1 i.e. the owner by name P. Krishna Reddy was examined as R.W.1 and he admitted to the employment, accident and the disability suffered by the Claimant. It was also reiterated by R.W.1 that the Claimant being paid monthly wage of Rs.4,000/- per month. 12. On behalf of the O.P.No.2-Insurance Company, the Administrative Officer by name Muneppa was examined as R.W.2. He deposed that the Claimant was not the driver and the Policy does not cover the risk of cleaner and through him Ex.B.1 Insurance policy, Ex.B.2 Copy of complaint and Ex.B.3 Claim for damages to the lorry were marked. 13. The Commissioner taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence and the case law held that the accident occurred in the course of employment and considering the nature of job of the Claimant, the disability was taken as 100% since it would not be possible for the Claimant to drive the lorry and awarded compensation of Rs.5,19,998/-. Hence, the present C.M.A is filed. 14. Heard Sri B. Parameswara Rao, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company and Sri J. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the Respondents. 15. It was contended by the counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company that the Claimant is only a second driver and that the Policy covers only one driver and as one driver was covered under the Policy and in the absence of any premium to another driver, the Insurance Company cannot be liable for the compensation. 16. The counsel for the Respondents supported the order of the Commissioner and contended that there was no factual dispute with regard to employment, accident and the disability of the Claimant. He further contended that the Insurance Company would be liable to pay compensation as the Policy covers liability not only to the driver but also to an employee. 17. Having heard the respective contentions, this Court is of the opinion that the reading of the Policy of the insurance company, which was marked as Ex.B.1 would indicate that the premium was paid for a compensation to an employee under the Workmen’s Compensation Act , 1923 apart from T.P basic. As the Policy is towards liability under the Act towards employee, the contention of the counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Policy that the Policy is restricted only to one driver does not have any merit. 18. As the Policy is towards liability under the Act towards employee, the contention of the counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Policy that the Policy is restricted only to one driver does not have any merit. 18. Therefore, this Court does not have any substantial ground to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner and the C.M.A stands dismissed. 19. Since the incident had happened in the year 2003 and considering the time gap of 22 years and the uncertain address of the Claimant, the State Legal Services Authority shall coordinate with the concerned Departments and inform the Claimant of the outcome of the appeal and ensure that the compensation amount with accrued interest is deposited in the Aadhar linked bank account of the Claimant at the earliest. 20. The Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the State Legal Services Authority for taking necessary action.As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.