DIVISIONAL MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE Vs. MANORAMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of a common judgment and award passed under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, M.A. No. 555 of 2002 has been preferred by the insurance company and F.A.O. No. 128 of 2002 has been preferred by dependants of the deceased workman.

(2.) The appellants in F.A.O. No. 128 of 2002 filed an application numbered as WC Case No. 730-D of 2000 as legal heirs/ dependants of the deceased Raj Kishore Singh, who succumbed to the injuries on 12.11.2000 sustained in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 6.11.2000. It transpires from the facts of the case that on 6.11.2000 at about 10 p.m. in the night when the deceased was checking the back wheel of the truck bearing No. OIG 2462 after parking it on the extreme left of the road on the National Highway No. 5 near Chhatia, another truck dashed against him and ran over a portion of the body and legs of the deceased. As a consequence he sustained compound fractures of the legs, ribs, waist and other injuries and was admitted to the SCB Medical Hospital at Cuttack where he expired on 12.11.2000. Claimants stated in their application that at the time of accident the deceased was under the employment of Kerala Transport Co. Ltd. and having died in an accident arising out of and in course of his employment and he being a workman is entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It was claimed by the claimants that the deceased was receiving wage of Rs. 3,000 per month besides food allowance of Rs. 15 per day and was working as a driver in the truck bearing No. OIG 2462 under the owner and was aged about 35 years at the time of his death.

(3.) Mr. S.S. Rao, the learned counsel appearing for insurance company appellant in M.A. No. 555 of 2002 submitted that the appeal involves substantial questions of law as required under section 30 of the Act. He contended that the fact that there is no record available in the concerned police station, i.e., Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Deputy Labour Commissioner, Cuttack in the impugned judgment and non-consideration of such material fact is a substantial question of law. He further submitted that though the claimants produced the copy of appointment letter of the deceased and adduced oral evidence, there is no material on record to show that the deceased was engaged as a driver in the truck bearing registration No. OIG 2462 on the date and time of accident and, therefore, employment, if any of the deceased was casual in nature. He thus submits that the deceased cannot be construed to be a workman, as defined under the Act and the appellant insurer is not liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Commissioner.