C.R.SARMA, J. - (1.) BY this appeal, filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), the judgment and award, dated 20.08.2009, passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Aizawl, in W.C. Case No. 04 of 2007, has been challenged.
(2.) ONE Rochharliana, S/O. Thangliana (L) (hereinafter called 'the deceased'), was the younger brother of the claimant-respondent No. 1. The said deceased was working as a driver in respect of a Bolero vehicle, bearing Registration No. MZ-01/B-9120. While driving the said Bolero vehicle, under the employment of Sri Collen Lalsangpuii, the deceased met with an accident, on 23/5/2006 and as a result of which, he succumbed to the injuries, sustained by him. According to the claimant-respondent, the deceased was earning Rs. 4,000/- as his monthly salary and that after the death of their parents, the deceased, who was unmarried, was living with the claimant-respondent and his family, supporting the claimant by paying him Rs. 3,000/- per month. According to the claimant, he and his family members were dependant on the income of his said deceased. In view of the death of the deceased, in the said vehicular accident, the claimant filed a claim case before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Aizawl. The concerned vehicle was insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. i.e. the appellant-respondent No. 2. The owner of the vehicle and the insurer, as opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, contested the claim, by filing written statements. The owner of the vehicle, by filing a written statement, while admitting the death of the deceased in connection with the said accident, stated that he used to pay the said driver i.e. the deceased, a monthly salary of Rs. 4,000/-. According to the said owner, the vehicle was duly insured with the opposite party No. 2 and as such the said insurer was liable to pay the compensation, if any.
(3.) THE insurer, by filing written statement, raised the question regarding the locus standi of the claimant in filing the claim petition. The opposite party No. 2 further denied that the claimant was a dependant of the deceased. Upon the pleadings of both the parties, the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, framed the following issues: "1. Whether the applicant is workman within the meaning of the Act? 2. Whether the accident arose out of or in the course of the applicant's employment? 3. Whether the amount of compensation claimed is due or any part of that amount? 4. Whether the Opposite party is liable to such compensation?" ;