- (1.) The Insurance Company has filed this appeal stating that the deceased was not an employee of respondent No.4 and, therefore, compensation was wrongly awarded. Computation of interest was also disputed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant argued that respondent No.4, alleged employer, appeared in the witness box and stated that the deceased was not employed by her as cleaner on the truck in question but she admitted that Suraj Bhan was employed as driver. Said Suraj Bhan appeared as AW3 and stated that Jitender (deceased) was cleaner with him. Learned counsel argued that the court below wrongly believed the statement of Suraj Bhan to be proof of employment of Jitender under respondent No.4. It was for the claimants to have brought cogent evidence about the employment.
(3.) Regarding the interest, it was argued on behalf of the appellant that no information about the accident was given by respondent No.4 to the company and, therefore, the company was not liable to pay interest. The appellant had no knowledge about the factum of accident as such. Also if the court would be pleased to believe the statement of Suraj Bhan and hold that Jitender was the employee of respondent No.4, then it would mean that the owner/employer i.e. respondent No.4 had lied before the court while denying employment and in such event, the appellant should not be made liable to pay even the compensation much less the interest part.;