(1.) HEARD Mr. S.S. Rao, Learned Counsel of the appellant, at length.
(2.) THIS AHO has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 132 of 1994. That appeal was preferred by the appellant against the award passed on 29.10.1993 by the Asststant Labour Commissioner -cum -Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Cuttack. Applicant Suka Sahoo claiming to be the mother of deceased Suryamani Sahoo, claimed for compensation for the admitted death of the said deceased due to an accident occurred by the Truck bearing Registration No. AMZ 6530. The deceased was 27 years old by the date of the aforesaid accident and death. Compensation was claimed on the ground that the applicant is the sole heir and successor of the deceased and that the deceased was the only earning -hand having a monthly income of Rs. 900/ - (rupees nine hundred) as the Helper of the said Truck, died in course of the said employment. The owner of the truck, in spite of notice, did not appear to contest and therefore, the appellant as the insurer of the said vehicle contested the claim of the applicant. Three witnesses were examined by the claimant including herself as P.W. No. 1 in proof of the employment and the accident and also the applicant relied on documentary evidence, i.e., the papers prepared by the police agency during the course of the investigation. Appellant examined one witness, i.e., the investigator of the Insurance Company as OPW No. 1. On assessment of such evidence, learned Commissioner recorded all the findings on all the issues in favour of the applicant and granted a compensation of Rs. 70,941.05 paise. Appellant, as noted above, challenged that award in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 132 of 1994. Learned Single Judge, on due consideration of the contention of the appellant, did not find good reason to interfere with the impugned award and accordingly while recording the concurrent finding on fact, approved that award and dismissed the appeal.
(3.) I agree.