ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. ABRAHAM PHILLIP PARSHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the insurer under section 30 (1)of the Workmen's Compensation act, 1923, challenging the legality and correctness of judgment and award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation, Sub-Division-1, Hubli in No. WCA/f. 117/1977, dated 30 November, 2004.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that initially, deceased Abrahram Philip Parsha filed claim petition before the W. C. Commissioner, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him during the course and out of employment. During pendency of said claim petition Abraham Philip Parsha died and hence his L Rs came on record. The case of the claimant is that the deceased was working as a cleaner under respondent 4 in the lorry/truck bearing No. MEW4536, respondents 2 and 3 have taken some contract work of construction of bridge to river and therefore hired the vehicle in question. That on 19th february, 1996 at about 5. 30 p. m. during the course of employment while unloading the materials like cement, iron, etc. from the vehicle in question nearthe work place at Tatti halla, the bridge under construction collapsed and the deceased sustained grievous injuries, therefore he filed claim petition before the workmen's Compensation Commissioner, but he died on 27th September, 2000 during the pendency of claim petition, therefore his L. R. s were brought on record. A case in Cr. No. 22 of 1996 is also registered under Sections 288 and 336 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the respondent 2. the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation after recording the evidence of both the parties and after hearing Counsel for the parties, passed judgment and award directing the appellant herein to pay compensation of Rs. 1,73,465/-with interest at 12% p. a. from 30 days after the date of death i. e. 27th December, 2000 till deposit. Hence this appeal.

(3.) HEARD the arguments for the learned counsel for the appellant and respondents and perused the records, the only substantial questions of law involved in this appeal is: