NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. PRANAB CH. ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Hoque, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant No. 1. None appears for the respondent No. 2 on call.

(2.) By filing this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (now renamed as the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923), hereinafter referred to as the said Act, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order 007.2007 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Dhubri in W.C. Case No. 25/2005.

(3.) The case projected by the respondent No. 1 in the claim petition before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation was that he was employed by the respondent No. 2 herein as a driver for his vehicle No. AS-15/8893 and while the said vehicle was on the way from Guwahati to Pathshala on 006.2005, the car met with the accident near Changsari, under Kamlapur P.S. As a result of the said accident, the respondent No. 1 had sustained head injury, facial injury, chest injury and eye injury. He was given primary treatment in Rangia and then he came to Pathshala for treatment and later on he was shifted to Guwahati Medical College and Hospital for treatment. He stated that he had lost total eye sight in the right eye, which affected his eye sight in the left eye. He suffered fracture injury in the chest in respect of 4, 5 and 6 rib of the chest, he lost one tooth and his forehead bone was also cracked, affecting his whole eye sight. He had stated that his vehicle was insured by the appellant herein by policy which was valid on the date of the accident and he claimed that his employed not give any ex-gratia for compensation. The respondent No. 2 appeared before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and accepted the occurrence of the accident and disclosed that as a driver the respondent No. 1 was received salary of Rs. 4,200/- and daily food allowance of Rs. 70/- .The appellant also contested the case by filing their written statement, denying that the respondent No. 1 was engaged as a driver on the date of accident and that the injury under the plea of injury as a driver was not sustainable, injury being not grievous and permanent in nature. The appellant disputed the income of the respondent No. 1.