DHRUBENDRA RAY Vs. BISWANATH AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') correctness of the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate and Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Mayurbhanj (in short, the 'commissioner') is under challenge.

(2.) DHRUBENDRA Ray (hereinafter referred to as the 'claimant') lodged a claim in Form F in terms of Rule 20 of the Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924 (in short, the 'rules') on the following premises. He was working as a driver of a vehicle bearing Registration No. OFM 1045 which was kept stationery near a hotel at Khuntuni at about 3 a. m. on August 4, 1988 when another trunk dashed against it, whereby he sustained serious mjuries which were very serious in nature as would be evident from the fact that there was fracture of ieft hand wrist and of the back bone. On account of the accident he was disabled which affected his earning capacity. He was getting monthly wages of Rs. 1200/- per month from Biswanath Agarwal (hereinafter referred to as the 'employer ' ). However, employer filed objection to the claim taking the stand that claimant was not getting Rs. 1200/but was getting Rs. 1000/- per month and he was employed on a temporary basis. The claim that there was disablement which affected normal functioning was disputed on the ground that the claimant was fit enough to discharge his normal duties and was working as driver under another person. The vehicle was stated to be insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. (in short, the 'insurer') and therefore, compensation, if any, was to be paid by way of indemnification by the Insurer.

(3.) THE Commissioner framed eight issues of which issue Nos. 5,6 and 7 which are relevant for the purpose of this appeal, read as follows: