- (1.) THIS misc. appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter 'the 1923 Act') has been filed against the judgment dated 28 -2 -2013 passed by the Employee's Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur District -I, Jaipur (hereinafter 'the Commissioner'), whereby the Commissioner has found the respondents - claimants (hereinafter 'the claimants') entitled to compensation for a sum of Rs.5,98,680/ - along with interest at the rate of 12% effective one month following the date of accident till the date of payment. Liability for payment of compensation and interest has been jointly visited upon the appellant insurance company as well as the employer Radhey Shyam Kanodiya in whose employment the deceased Prahlad Yadav was working at the time of his death. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment dated 28 -2 -2013.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant insurance company has submitted that there was no evidence of any probative worth before the commissioner to arrive at a finding that the deceased Prahlad Yadav was working as a driver on the truck No.RJ -23/GA -2423 owned by M/s. Kanodia Oil Store Khetri Road, Neemka Thana Sikar (a proprietorship firm) and insured with the National Insurance company Ltd. or that the purported driver Prahlad Yadav was receiving wages of Rs.8000/ - per month. Counsel submitted that except for the statement of Smt. Bhagwati Devi, the wife of deceased Prahlad Yadav, in this regard there was no other corroborative evidence to this effect. It was submitted that in the circumstances obtaining, the Commissioner ought to have taken into consideration at best the minimum wages for a skilled labourer as prescribed by the State Government for computing the compensation. Aside of aforesaid, it has been submitted that the interest on the amount of compensation found payable to the claimants is excessive. It was prayed that hence the judgment dated 28 -2 -2013 was liable to be set aside. Mr. Keshav Agrawal, learned counsel for the claimants has supported the impugned judgment dated 28 -2 -2013 passed by the Commissioner. Appeals under Section 30 of the 1923 Act are to be admitted if only any substantial question of law arises. The finding of the Commissioner on the point of wages of the deceased employee on the basis of the unshaken statement of the wife of the deceased before him is a finding of fact. It is universally known that employment of truck drivers is ordinarily informal and such drivers are engaged without any written letter of appointment specially when engaged by entities not incorporated - -as in this case. In such circumstances the question as to whether a person/ claimant was appointed as driver and what was the salary of such driver was to be determined by the Commissioner from the overall evidence of the case and its probabilities. The statement of the wife or the relatives of the deceased driver, as the case may be, is extremely relevant and until shaken in cross examination, or dislocated by contrary evidence, of substance. It is all a matter of preponderance of probabilities. It is no doubt true that where conclusion on finding of fact are arrived at, in the absence of any evidence such finding being perverse they are liable to be interfered with for then a substantial question of law vis a vis such findings would be made out. That situation however does not obtain in the facts of this appeal.
(3.) IN this case as the accident of truck No.RJ -23/GA -2423 on 9 -10 - 2010 is an undisputed fact, there would be no ground to disbelieve the claimant's evidence as to her husband's employment as a driver on the truck particularly it was not claimed to the contrary. The owner of the truck in question remained ex -parte and in view of the unshaken evidence of the wife of the deceased driver Prahlad Yadav and no contra evidence thereto the Commissioner arrived at the finding of the employment of the deceased Prahlad as the driver of the insured offending truck bearing No.RJ -23/GA -2423 and the salary of the deceased as Rs.8000/ - per month. There was no occasion for the Commissioner to disbelieve the testimony of the wife of the deceased. The consequence, rightly was the impugned award.;