ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. MUDULI RAMA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company represented by its Divisional Manager questioning the correctness of the judgment dated 30.11.1998 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Ganjam, Berhampur, W.C. Case No. 6 of 1997 urging various facts and legal contentions. The claimant-respondent filed claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation seeking for compensation on the allegation that he was a workman in terms of section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 (for short, "the Act") serving under respondent No. 2 on contractual basis as helper. During the course of employment he suffered injury and sustained loss of earning capacity. Therefore, the claim petition was filed seeking compensation. Learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation after conducting trial directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation amount of Rs. 29,281/-, which is challenged by the appellant in this appeal urging various facts and legal contentions.

(2.) It is urged by the learned Counsel Mr. Dutta appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company that the judgment passed by the Commissioner is based on surmises and conjectures. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside.

(3.) It is contended that the Commissioner has erred in law in holding that respondent No. 1 is a workman as defined under the Act and that the accident took place in course of his employment. Section 2(1)(n) of the Act defines, that workman means any person other than a person whose employment is of casual nature. As such, if a person is employed in such category, he would not be a workman. Respondent No. 1 has categorically averred in the claim application that he was working under respondent No. 2 owner on contractual basis as helper when the regular helper was on leave. Therefore, the nature of the employment of respondent No. 1 is casual. Hence the judgment passed by the Commissioner is liable to be set aside.