GOPAL SINGH Vs. NILAMANI PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Workman is the appellant in this appeal under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) WORKMAN was a driver. On 4 -1 -1977 while he was driving the vehicle of the owner under hit employment he sustained injuries which resulted in the amputation of his left hand from the wrist. Being unsuccessful with the issue of notice to the employer to get the compensation, he filed the application before the Commissioner under the Act for compensation indicating that his monthly wages was Rs. 500/ - and he was getting Rs. 20/ - per day towards allowance on days of his duty. The Commissioner issued notice to the owner who did not appear. On the basis of the materials on record, the Commissioner found that the monthly wages of the appellant was Rs. 500/ - and the workman was entitled to compensation at the rate of 100%. Accordingly, he calculated the compensation at Rs. 21,000/ -.

(3.) THIS appeal was filed in the year 1982. In 1986 only the appellant filed an application to add the insurer as a party. I issued notice to the insurer to show cause why he should not be made a party on the basis of which Mr. A.K. Mohanty has appeared in this case on behalf of the insurer. Under the Act the liability is to be fixed on the employer. The vicarious liability as provided under some provisions in the Act do not include the insurer. However, the liability of the insurer has been created by the judicial precedent. Liability of the insurer would depend upon the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act and not beyond. If I make the insurer a party at this stage, the matter is bound to be remitted back to give of opportunity to contest the claim. Therefore, by a separate order I have already rejected the application for making the insurer a party at the appellate stage.