BALIA HANSADA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 795 of 1996. National Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'insurer') had filed said appeal on several grounds.

(2.) BACKGROUND facts leading to filing of the appeal are as follows: Balia Hansada (respondent No. 1) filed a claim petition along with Maya alias Sunia Hansada, respondent No. 2 claiming compensation in respect of death of one Chamma Hansada alias Besra. The said Champa was claimed to be the wife of respondent No. 1 Balia Hansada. In W.C. Case No. 55/94 which was filed before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation -cum -Assistant Labour Commissioner, Balasore (in short, the 'Commissioner') it was stated that Champa died on 7.6.1994 in an accident involving a dumper bearing registration No. ORM 8301 belonging to respondent No. 3 Birat Chandra Dagara (hereinafter referred to as the 'owner'). On getting notice the owner filed written statement admitting the alleged accident, and death of Champa but shifted liability of compensation to the insurer. Balia Hansada was examined as P.W. 1 and another person was examined as P.W. 2 claiming to be an eye witness to the accident. The Commissioner held that the claimants were entitled to compensation and accordingly awarded compensation of Rs. 70,942/ -. The same was challenged in Miscellaneous appeal under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short, the 'Act'). According to the insurer relationship between the claimants and the deceased was not proved. There is enough material to doubt the genuineness of the claim in view of change of surname from 'Besra' to 'Hansada'. The Commissioner held that the deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of accident and was getting Rs. 900/ - as salary per month. In the appeal it was urged that conclusion regarding relationship are erroneous and therefore, the Commissioner was not justified in making any award. Further, the circumstances under which two other cases (W.C. Case Nos. 4 and 5 of 1994) were filed at Baripada before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation were dropped.

(3.) DURING course of hearing, learned counsel for appellant brought to our notice notification SRO No. 90/94 issued in exercise of powers conferred by Sub -section (1) of Section 20 of the Act. Said notification was published in the Orissa Gazette dated 11th February, 1994.