BHAJANLAL PADIA Vs. BAJINATH @ BAJNATH MAJHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Within the limited scope of consideration of substantial question of law, this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in short, 'the Act') arises out of an order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Baripada (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') awarding compensation to the father of the deceased workman.

(2.) APPELLANT carries on the business of mining. In course of and for the purpose of the said business, he transports the minerals from Suleipat mining area to Badampahar railway station. To execute the work of transport, he had oral contract with respondent No. 2, who was transporting the mineral in his truck (OR J 3978). Bidar Majhi, the son of the criminal (respondent No. 1) was engaged as a coolie in the said truck for loading the minerals at Suleipat and unloading the same at Badampahar railway station and for that purpose he was making to and from journey between Suleipat and Badampahar in the truck. On 30 -1 -1977 at about 8 a. m. when the truck loaded with minerals was proceeding from Suleipat to Badampahar railway station, it dashed against a tree. In the accident Bidar Majhi died on the injuries sustained at the spot.

(3.) ON receipt of notice from the Commissioner, the appellant and respondent No. 2 appeared. The appellant in his written statement explained that he had entrusted the work of transporting the mineral including loading and unloading to respondent No. 2 and had no responsibility in the matter of movement of the truck and the deceased who was not she employee of the appellant having died in the accident far away from the mining area of the appellant (Suleipat), he had absolutely no responsibility in the matter. Respondent No. 2 in his written statement while admitting death of Bidar Majhi, the coolie, in course of his moving in the truck carrying minerals as per the contract of transport with the appellant, claimed that he had no responsibility for loading and unloading and the deceased was an employee under the appellant to carry out the said job. He attributed the fatal injuries to the carelessness of the deceased. The insurer (respondent No. 3), who was made a party on the prayer of both the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, disowned any liability on the grounds that the appellant was not insured by it and its insured, respondent No. 2, was not to be indemnified since the terms of the insurance had been violated. It took shelter under Section 14 of the Act limiting the liability -to insolvency of its insured in case the latter is held to be the employer.