NATIONAL INSURNCE COMPANY LTD Vs. PADMAVATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal against an award under the Workmen's Compensation Act is by the insurer. Valid insurance cover is not in dispute. The only plea of the appealing insurer is that the death of the victim was not on account of any activity which can be called as one that arose in the course of employment. No elaboration is required to state that this is essentially a question of fact, unless, of course, it is established that an error of law has been committed in the appreciation of evidence. Also, when Evidence Act does not apply, principles of fairness and fair play, reasonableness, exclusion of perversity in adjudication, availability of evidence, etc. would govern the issue as to whether this Court would interfere, holding that a substantial question of law arises for decision in such an appeal.

(2.) The first claimant, the mother of the deceased deposed as AW1. AW2 spoke as an independent witness regarding the incident. The insurer did not adduce any evidence, either oral or documentary. However, it had argued that the evidence on record does not show that the incident was in connection with the employment and that it can be seen that the situation was otherwise. The owner of the Jeep did not dispute the fact that the deceased was the driver of the Jeep. In fact, the insurer also did not dispute that aspect.

(3.) The oral evidence of the witnesses who deposed were considered by the Commissioner in the context of the documentary evidence. The impugned award was passed, essentially, on appreciation of the evidence on record.