NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SANJULATA MALLIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE insurer is the appellant which hasfiled this Letters Patent appeal challenging the validity of theorder dated 27.2.1997 passed by a learned Single Judge, whosubstantially dismissed its appeal which was directed againstthe order of the Commissioner under the Workmen's CompensationAct, 1923 granting compensation to respondents 1 to 4.

(2.) FACTS : Respondents 1 to 4 are legal heirs of deceasedBabana Mallik. They filed W.C. Case No. 181 -D of 1991 beforethe Commissioner claiming a sum of Rs. 70,000/ - as compensationon account of injuries sustained by the said Babana Mallik inan accident arising out of and in course of employment as aCoolie in the truck bearing registration on ORY 1196 belongingto Kumar Swain (respondent No. 5). The accident took place on 6.1.1991 between 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. at Gagala Pahada.While the said Babana Mallik was lifting a stone to load it inthe truck, a big boulder rolled down from the quarry and fellon him. as a result of which he sustained serious injuries onhis person. He was shifted to Cuttack Medical College and Hospitalimmediately, but he succumbed to the same. He was aged about27 years and was earning Rs. 800/ - per month as salary andRs. 10/ - per day as food allowance.

(3.) ON the basis of the evidence adduced in the case, theCommissioner by order dated 17.5.1995 held that the deceased -Babana Mallik was a workman under the employer (respondentNo. 5) and he died in the accident arising out of and in course ofhis employment. By taking into account his age and wages, hedetermined compensation at Rs. 63.059.20. The Commissionerdid not accept the plea of the appellant that it is not liable topay compensation because the driver of the truck had no validdriving licence. Against the said order of the Commissioner, theappellant preferred M.A. No. 310 of 1995. The learned SingleJudge by the order under appeal merely set aside the Commissioner'sorder regarding payment of interest and penalty. By reiteratingits objection, the appellant contended before the learned SingleJudge that the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle wasrenewed basing on a fake licence and, as such, there was violationof the policy condition, for which it is not liable to pay any compensation.This objection was not accepted by the learned Single Judge whoobserved that once licence was renewed it got validated.