ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. JILIMUN NECHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, Oriental Insurance Company Limited being the insurer has challenged the legality and validity of judgment and order dated 26.12.2003 passed by learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Guwahati in W.C. Case No. 25/2002.

(2.) ONE Msstt. Jilimun Necha, as claimant, filed a claim petition before the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation (hereinafter referred to as 'the WC Commissioner') stating that her husband Late Kurban Ali was a driver of a Maruti Van bearing registration No. AS 01C - 7779 owned by Md. Abdur Rasid Ahmed of Rukmini Gaon. On 01.12.2001 when Kurban Ali was driving the vehicle for coming towards Khetri from Jorhat, an unknown vehicle dashed against it from behind causing damage to the vehicle and in the process, Kurban Ali sustained grievous injury on his person. Subsequently, he died in M.M.C. Hospital at Panbazar on the same day. Post mortem was done over his dead body and a police case being Khetri P.S. Case No. 204/2001 under Section 279/338/304 (A)/427 IPC was registered. According to the claimant, the deceased was getting salary of Rs. 3,000/ - per month in addition to Rs. 45/ - towards daily allowance. He was the only earning member of the family but the owner of the vehicle did not make any payment of compensation owing to his death. The owner opposite party No. 1 did not contest the proceeding.

(3.) THE claimant examined herself by adducing a number of documentary evidences like accident information report, certified copy of the FIR, age certificate issued by the Forensic Medicine of Guwahati Medical College and Hospital, post mortem report etc. She stated in her deposition that the deceased was being paid Rs. 3,000/ - per month by the owner and a sum of Rs. 45/ - was also paid as daily allowance. She was duly cross examined by the learned counsel for the insurance company in reply to specific question put to her that her deceased husband was not having valid license at the time of accident. However, as the claimant could not produce any documentary evidence in support of the income of her husband, the learned WC Commissioner presumed the monthly salary of the deceased to be Rs. 2500/ - per month and his age was considered to be 30 years. However, the learned WC Commissioner was of the considered opinion that the deceased was engaged driver in vehicle AS 01C -7779 and that he died in a vehicular accident in course of his employment. It was also found that the claimant was dependent wife of the deceased and so she was entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.