(1.) This appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the W.C. Act') is directed against the award passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Nahan, District Sirmour in Case No. 2 of 1996, decided on 30.8.1997.
(2.) When this appeal was admitted on 27.4.1998 the substantial questions of law arising in the appeal were not framed in the appeal. Appellant insurance company has framed four substantial questions of law. In my view none of those questions of law are properly framed. The two questions of law which arise in this appeal are:
(3.) The facts necessary for the decision of this case are that Gurnam Singh was a driver of truck No. HRO 5952 owned by respondent No. 6. Admittedly, Gurnam Singh died in an accident of the said truck on 7.8.1993 while on duty. Claimants who are the widow and minor sons and daughters of the deceased had filed an application for grant of compensation under the W.C. Act. In this claim it was alleged that the deceased was getting monthly wages of Rs. 1,550 plus expenses of Rs. 450, i.e., total amount of Rs. 2,000 per month. It was also alleged that since the owner had not paid the compensation in time, claimants were also entitled to penalty of 50 per cent. The owner did not file any reply and was proceeded ex, pane. Insurance company filed reply and took the plea that the deceased did not have a valid driving licence. It was averred that the insurance company had got investigated the driving licence No. 713/9, dated 11.12.1973 allegedly issued by the District Transport Officer, Ropar in favour of the deceased. On investigation, it was found that licence was not a valid driving licence, but was a fake one. It was urged that the insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation. Petitioners in their rejoinder controverted these allegations. The Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, framed the issues. One of the issues framed was: "Whether Gurnam Singh was having a valid driving licence".