(1.) This appeal has been heard on merits at the admission stage on consent of counsels for both parties. This appeal has been directed against the order/judgment passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Cuttack (in short the "Commissioner") in W.C. Case No. 427-J of 1994, whereby the Commissioner has directed the appellant Insurance Company to pay Rs, 77,500/- as compensation to claimant-respondents 1 to 4 within thirty days from the date of the order.
(2.) The claimant-respondents claimed to be the dependents of deceased Santosh Kumar Rout, who was employed as a Coolie in the truck bearing registration number OR-04-6395. Said Santosh Kumar Rout was going in the aforesaid truck as Coolie on Daitari- Paradeep Express Highway from Paradeep to Chandikhole. Near Badapalgoda, the said truck met with an accident as it had collided with another truck and due to such accident, Santosh Kumar Rout instantaneously died.
(3.) The driver Bhaskar Chandra Mallik who has been examined in this case fled away from the place of accident to Chandikhole and parked the truck in front of the Truck Association Office. Respondent No. 5, who is the owner of the truck, did not appear notwithstanding service of notice. The appellant appeared through advocate and contested the case by filing written statement. The claimants examined four witnesses apart from adducing certain documents which were marked as exhibits. The learned Commissioner on appraisal of the evidence produced by the claimants held that deceased Santosh Kumar Rout was employed in the truck as a Coolie at the time of accident basing on the evidence adduced by the driver of the truck in question. Previously there was a first round of litigation between the Insurance Company and the claimants and this Court remitted the matter to the Commissioner as there was no specific observation that the deceased was an employee in the truck at the time of accident. After the matter was remitted back, the claimants had examined the driver of the truck and the driver has testified that the deceased was employed as a Coolie. Though he was cross-examined by the appellant, yet nothing turned out from such cross-examination to discredit his testimony. There has been no rebuttal evidence produced by the Insurance Company to disprove the said fact. In the absence of such material, there can be no other conclusion save and except to hold that Santosh Kumar Rout was employed as a Coolie by the owner of the truck at the time of accident. As regards the age of the deceased, there has been no dispute raised by the appellant.