NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. NARENDRA SAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NATIONAL Insurance Co. Ltd. , represented through its Senior Divisional Manager, Cuttack, filed this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenging the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Labour Commissioner, Cuttack Division, in W. C. Case No. 43-D of 1987, directing it to pay Rs. 96,211. 50 to the respondent No. 1 towards compensation. The respondent No. 2 is the owner of the ill-fated vehicle, truck No. OSU 543. The aforementioned case was registered on the application filed by the respondent No. 1 claiming a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- as compensation from the appellant and the respondent No. 2. The case of the applicant, shortly stated, was that on March 24, 1987 while he was going in the truck No. OSU 543 as a helper from Ramgarh to Baripada, the truck dashed against a roadside tree and overturned and the left leg of the applicant was crushed resulting in compound fractures. The left leg of the applicant was amputated in the Rajendra Medical College Hospital, Ranchi, in which he underwent medical treatment after the accident. It was the further case of the applicant that as a full-time worker he was getting Rs. 850/- per month towards wages plus Rs. 150/-per month as overtime allowance. The claim of compensation was made against the owner of the vehicle as well as its insurer.

(2.) THE owner of the vehicle, respondent No. 2, in his written statement fully supported the case of the applicant. He admitted that his vehicle met with the accident, admitted existence of relationship of master and servant between himself and the applicant and that the left leg of the applicant had been amputated. He did not dispute the payment of monthly wage to the applicant as claimed by the applicant. He stated that the vehicle had been validly insured with the appellant insurance company on the date of accident.

(3.) THE appellant insurance company in its written statement generally denied all the allegations in the application for compensation. It did not readily admit that the vehicle was insured with it and called upon the claimant-applicant to furnish full particulars of the insurance policy.