( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by national Insurance Co. Ltd. , opposite party no. 2 (hereinafter called the insurance company ), against the order dated 31. 7. 92 in W. C. No. 75 of 1990 granting compensation of Rs. 1,09,235 to the respondent no. 1-applicant (hereinafter called the workman ). The opposite party No. 1 before the Commissioner for Workmen s compensation (hereinafter called the Tribunal ) is respondent No. 2 in this appeal. He is the owner of the lorry bearing No. ADT 1209 (hereinafter called the owner ).

( 2 ) THE brief facts necessary to dispose of the appeal are as follows: The workman while working with the owner on the lorry bearing No. ADT 1209 met with an accident on 25. 5. 1990 at a place falling within the territorial jurisdiction of Indupur in maharashtra State. The lorry was covered by the insurance policy given by the insurance company. The workman sustained grave multiple injuries, and it is alleged that he totally lost his earning capacity. According to the workman, on the date of accident, he was aged 24 years and was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 1,200. In his case before the Tribunal in W. C. No. 75 of 1990, filed under the Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter called the w. C. Act ), he claimed a compensation of rs. 1,09,235. He alleged that the owner is not willing to pay the compensation though he was aware of the accident, and that the owner has to pay 50 per cent penalty with six per cent simple interest. The insurance company and the owner of the lorry filed their respective counters and contested the matter. However, during the inquiry, the insurance company did not cross-examine the workman before the Tribunal.

( 3 ) HAVING regard to the material on record, the Tribunal framed the following points for consideration: (1) Whether this court has jurisdiction? (2) Whether the applicant was employed by opposite party No. 1? And if so, whether the accident took place while on duty? (3) What was his wage and age? (4) Whether there is delay in this case? if so, whether this court can invoke section 4-A (3) of the W. C. Act to impose 50 per cent penalty and six per cent simple interest?

( 4 ) THE Tribunal relying on the decisions, Calcutta chemicals v. V. K. Burman, AIR 1969 Patna 379 and Municipal board, Mount Abu v. Hari Lal, 1988 ACJ 821 (Rajasthan), and an unreported judgment of this court in W. P. Nos. 7461 and 7462 of 1982, held on point No. 1 that the tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the case. On point No. 2, the Tribunal held that the accident took place on 25. 1. 1990, that on the date of accident, the workman was an employee of the respondent No. 2 owner of the vehicle, and that on the date of accident, the workman was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 1,000. But on the question of disability, even though the doctor who issued medical certificate, Exh. A-2, was not examined, the Tribunal relying on Exh. A-2 and other documents, namely, police panchnama, determined that the workman cannot drive the lorry, and thus he became totally disabled and lost 100 per cent earning capacity. On point No. 3 as to wage and age of the workman, the Tribunal concluded that as on the date of the accident, the workman was aged 24 years, and was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 1,000. On the last point, the Tribunal while invoking the provisions of section 4-A (3) of the w. C. Act, imposed penalty of 50 per cent and granted simple interest at the rate of six per cent per annum, and awarded total compensation as claimed by the workman. The award of the Tribunal under the W. C. Act, dated 31. 7. 1992 is impugned in this appeal under section 30 of the W. C. Act. The appeal, as against the owner of the lorry stood dismissed for default as per the order of this court dated 21. 12. 1999.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions: the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the case as the accident took place in the state of Maharashtra, and that the penalty impos