SMT. MANJU DEBI Vs. SRI SUBODH SAHA AND THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since they arise out of two identical awards of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. It appears that no substantial question of law was framed while admitting the appeals. An appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 lies to the High Court only when a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Findings of fact delivered by the Commissioner are final and cannot be set aside in appeal unless there is gross misreading of evidence or the Commissioner has reached a conclusion which no prudent man could arrive at. In the present case, the allegation of the claimants was that the deceased were employed as labourers in the truck in question and they were killed by extremists during the course of performing their duties and hence they were entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

(2.) THE respondent owner of the truck took up the plea that the deceased were not his workers and they were the workers of some ration shop dealers whose goods were being transported in his truck. The learned Commissioner held that the deceased died during the course of the employment. He also held that both the deceased were earning Rs. 100/ - per day and taking this to be the income assessed the compensation. The owner of the truck was found to be the employer of the deceased employees and compensation was awarded. The insurance company was held liable to pay the principal amount of compensation but the owner was held liable to pay the interest.

(3.) AS far as the appeals of the owner of the truck are concerned, it would be pertinent to mention that the owner has stepped into the witness box and denied that the deceased were his employees. According to him, the deceased were the employees of some ration shop dealers. However, he did not give the names of the ration shop dealers nor any details as to where the deceased persons were employed. Admittedly, the deceased were travelling or at least loading/unloading goods from the truck owned by the appellant. He had to come out with some better plea in his statement. If he denied that the deceased were not his employees he should have at least indicated whose employees they were.