- (1.) This misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellant Insurance Company against the judgment dated 23.6.2014 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') on a claim petition preferred by the respondents No. 1 to 4 under sections 10 and 22 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1923'). Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-claimants filed a claim petition before the Commissioner stating that deceased Parma Lal was employed as driver on the truck bearing registration No. RJ 27-GA-2719 owned by the respondent No. 5 Shri Anwar Hussain and insured with the appellant Insurance Company. On 3.7.2012, deceased Panna Lal was driving the insured truck from Narayan Gaon to Udaipur and the said truck over turned near Saputara, Gujarat and in that accident Panna Lal died. The respondent-claimants claimed compensation under the Act of 1923.
(2.) Notices were issued by the Commissioner to the Insurance Company as well as owner of the insured truck. Due to non-appearance of the owner of the insured truck, ex-parte proceedings were initiated against him, however, the appellant Insurance Company contested the claim petition. The Commissioner after recording the evidence of the parties concerned has allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent claimants and ordered for paying compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,61,520/- along with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum payable from 3.8.2012.
(3.) Assailing the impugned judgment dated 23.6.2014, the learned Counsel for the appellant, has argued that the learned Commissioner has not taken into consideration that the respondent-claimants have failed to prove that deceased Panna Lal was employed as driver on the insured truck, owned by the respondent No. 5, by producing cogent and material evidence. It is submitted that the respondent-claimants have not produced any documentary evidence to prove the fact that deceased Panna Lal was employed as driver of the insured truck or was driving the said truck on 3.7.2012, when the accident took place. It is also argued that the learned Commissioner has not calculated the amount of compensation in accordance with law and the compensation awarded cannot be termed as just compensation.;