REGIONAL MANAGER Vs. SITO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-insurance company under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") against the order dated 20.10.1999 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, Jaipur District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the Commissioner") in case No.40/93, awarding compensation of Rs.1,84,170/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident i.e. 17.12.1991, till realization.

(2.) In the instant case, it appears that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 original-claimants had filed the claim petition before the Commissioner seeking compensation for the death of Shri Ram Prasad, who was the husband of the respondent No.1 and father of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. According to the said respondents-claimants, the late Shri Ram Prasad expired in the accident which took place on 17.12.1991, when he was driving the truck bearing No.HYD-1837, which was owned by the respondent No.5 and insured with the appellant-insurance company. The said claim petition was resisted by the appellant-insurance company by filing the reply and contending inter alia that the claimants had not served the notice under Section 10 of the said Act and that the respondent No.5 owner of the vehicle had committed breach of the terms of the policy. The Commissioner taking into consideration the evidence on record passed the impugned order, against which the appeal has been preferred by the insurance company.

(3.) At the outset, it is required to be mentioned that the appellant at the time of filing of the appeal had not incorporated the substantial questions of law as contemplated in the proviso to Section 30 of the said Act. Unfortunately, the said fact appears to have escaped from the notice of the office when the appeal was registered and from the notice of the Court when the appeal was admitted. The appeal, when came up for hearing before this Court today, it was brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the appellant about the said fact by the Court and thereafter the learned counsel filed the substantial questions of law in the office today, which has been permitted to be taken on record, without being technical in the matter.