ORIENTAL FIRE AND GENERAL Vs. MATIAS BURLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act ').

(2.) IT is not in dispute that truck bearing No. ORJ 2159, belonging to respondent No. 2, met with an accident resulting in the death of two workmen employed by respondent No. 2 in the truck. The appellant is the insurer of the truck and respondent No. 1 in both the appeals are the legal representatives of the deceased workmen. There is no dispute in these appeals that the two workmen died in the course of their employment.

(3.) MR . S.S. Basu, learned counsel for the appellant, raised the following contentions : (a) The insurer is not liable to pay the compensation under the Act. (b) The levy of interest and penalty under Section 4A of the Act on the insurer is without jurisdiction. Liability of the insurer : In the decision, Bibhuti Bhusan Mukherjee v. Smt. Dinamani Dei [1981] 52 CLT 235 ; [1982] ACJ 338 ; [1983] 54 Comp Cas 286 (Orissa), which was an. appeal under the Act, it was held that the Commissioner under the Act can direct the recovery of the compensation amount from the insurer. In another decision of this court, Kumari Subasini Panda v. State of Orissa [1984] 57 CLT 262 ; [1984] ACJ 276 ; [1986] 60 Comp Cas 124 (Orissa), in an appeal under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, this court observed that by virtue of Section 95 of the Motor VehiclesAct, the Tribunal constituted under the Workmen's Compensation Act is competent to determine the liability of the insurer to the extent the workman was entitled under the Act and had the workman or his successors gone to the forum under the Act, they could have got compensation as prescribed under the Act, and the insurer is bound to indemnify the owner to that extent. The contention of Mr. Basu, having thus no force, is rejected.