- (1.) This appeal is directed against the award dated 26th July. 2004 passed by the Presiding Officer -cum -Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, Labour Court, Hazaribagh in W.C. Case No. 1 of 2001 whereby he has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,73,215/ - and held that Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount. The claimant, who is the widow of the deceased Santosh Kumar filed a claim case before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation for grant of compensation on the ground that the deceased was employee under Baleshwar Yadav, the owner of the truck bearing no. BK -38C -9283 alongwith another driver, Rohan Yadav and Rajendra Yadav, the Khalashi. While they were going in the truck from Koderma to Giridih on the way miscreants looted the truck and committed their murder. According to the claimant respondent, the deceased Santosh Kumar was working as driver of the said truck and was getting Rs. 3.000/ - per month.
(2.) THE respondent -owner of the vehicle contested the claim by denying the relationship of employee and employer. The case of the owner was that the deceased Santosh Kumar was not employee under him rather his status was a coolie for loading and unloading the truck on the basis of commission on the date of occurrence. According to the owner, the vehicle was insured with the appellant Insurance Company and even any compensation amount is payable the same shall be paid by the Insurer Company. The appellant -National Insurance Company also contested the claim by filing written statement. The stand of the Insurance Company was that the vehicle was insured covering the risk of two persons i.e. driver and cleaner and the third party. The Presiding Officer discussed the evidence adduced from the side of the claimant to establish the relations of employee and employer. On careful consideration of the evidence, the court held that although the case of the claimant that the deceased Santosh Kumar was second driver of the truck has not been established, but the fact that the deceased was employee under the owner has been established. On this finding, the Court came to the conclusion that relation of employee and employer did exist and the vehicle having been insured, the insurer of the vehicle will be liable to pay the compensation amount.
(3.) MR . Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company assailed the impugned award as being illegal, contrary to facts and evidence on record and is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel firstly contented that the finding of the court with regard to the relationship of employee and employer between the owner and the deceased Santosh Kumar is perverse in law. Learned counsel further submitted that the court below has committed error on record in so far as it held that there was no pleading of the appellant -Insurance Company to the effect that the vehicle was insured covering the risk of only two persons i.e. driver and the cleaner.;