Judgment:
M.M. Das, J.
1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd. against the order dated 26.3.2001 passed in W. C. Case No. 8 of 1996 by the Addl. District Magistrate-cum-Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mayurbhanj, Baripada.
2. Respondents 1 to 7 as legal heirs of deceased Gajendra Marandi @ Majhi claimed compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act for the death of said Gajendra Marandi who died in a motor accident which arose out of and in course of his employment as a driver of a jeep bearing registration No. ORM-3033 on 25/26.5.1996 night. On the application being filed and notice issued to the appellant-insurer as Opp. Party No. 2 and the respondent No. 8, the owner as Opp. Party No. 1, they entered appearance in the said case and filed their respective written statement. The owner of the vehicle though denied the fact of employment of said Gejendra Marandi as a driver, but stated in her written statement that the vehicle was validly insured by the appellant-insurer, disclosing the number of policy and its validity period. The appellant-insurer while denying all the allegations made in the claim petition further pleaded that the vehicle in question was not insured by it for which it would not be liable to indemnify the owner's liability. It is seen, however, that the owner after filing the written statement did not take part in the hearing of the case and did not adduce any evidence in support of her pleadings. The appellant-insurer too did not adduce any evidence before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation.
3. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation after recording the evidence adduced by the claimant-respondents and after accepting the police papers, such as certified copies of the FIR, plain paper FIR, final form, seizure list, postmortem report, driving licence and after framing as many as eight issues and on appreciation of evidence and documents available on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was employed as a driver in the jeep belonging to the owner-respondent No. 8 and he died as a consequence of an accident on 25/26.5.1996 which arose out of and in course of his employment as a driver under respondent No. 8. It was further found that at the time of death, his age was 32 years and his monthly wage was Rs. 2000/-. With regard to the policy of insurance, it was found that the vehicle was duly insured by the appellant on the date and time of accident. On the above findings, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation awarded a sum of Rs. 2,03,850/- as compensation and directed the appellant-insurer to pay the same within 30 days from the date of the said order.
4. It was submitted by Mr. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that even though the owner of the vehicle filed a written statement denying the relationship of 'employer and employee' between herself and the deceased, the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has acted contrary to law in relying upon the FIR lodged by one Santanu Kumar Sahoo, who is not the owner of the vehicle. Further it was contended that, there being absolutely no material on record with regard to the quantum of monthly wage which was being received by the deceased, the learned Commissioner should not have found that the monthly wage of the deceased was Rs. 2000/-per month.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that this appeal, being under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act which provides that an appeal can only be entertained if it involves a substantial question of law, should be dismissed in limine as it does not involve any substantial question of law. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-claimants that the learned Commissioner below has rightly appreciated the evidence and materials available on record and has committed no illegality by relying on the FIR which was lodged immediately after the accident by the husband of the owner of the vehicle where it is admitted that the deceased while under the employment as a driver under respondent No. 8 died due to the accident which occurred on 25/26.5.1996.
6. I have perused the lower Court record containing the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimant-respondents and the documents which were produced before the Court below and I find from the same that the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has rightly considered the said materials available on record in coming to the conclusion that the deceased died in an accident which arose out of and in course of his employment and was aged about 32 years at the time of death and was receiving the monthly wage of Rs. 2000/-. I also find that from the above, the learned Commissioner has correctly calculated the compensation payable to the claimants to be Rs. 2,03,850/-.
7. On a bare reading of Sections 23 and 25 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 the irresistible conclusion would be that the procedure adopted by the Commissioner in disposing the claim application filed under the W. C. Act is summary in nature and as such the provisions of the Evidence Act are not strictly applicable to such proceedings. Hence, I am of the view that the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was right in accepting the unrebutted testimony of the witness regarding employment of the deceased and his wages and in accepting that the deceased was under the employment of the owner, respondent No. 8 as a driver on the date of accident and died in course of his employment.
8. This Court in the decision reported in 2000(2) TAC 227 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Jayanti Nayak @ Jayantibala Nayak and Anr.) held that the finding that the deceased was a workman at the time of accident and the finding regarding his age and income are questions of fact and are not amenable to be interfered with in an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Similar view was also taken by this Court in the decision reported in 62 (1986) CLT 254 (Kudupudi Chhitabhai v. Aintha Tarai).
9. Considering the facts involved in this case, the findings of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and the grounds set forth by the appellant in the present appeal, I find that this appeal involves no substantial question of law as per the proviso to Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act and hence I dismiss the same as devoid of merit, but in the circumstances without costs.
10. Since the entire amount has been deposited before the Addl. District Magistrate-cum-Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mayurbhanj, I direct that the said amount along with accrued interest, if any, be disbursed in favour of the claimant-respondents 1 to 7 as early as possible.