JUDGMENT :

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (in short “The Act”) against the impugned order in W.C.No.44 of 2004, dated 26.11.2005 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour Circle I, Visakhapatnam (in short “The Commissioner”).

2. The appellant herein was the claimant. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein were the respondents being the owner and insurer before the learned Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed before the learned Commissioner.

3. Case of the applicant:-

Applicant being wife of the deceased Late Adinarayana preferred a claim seeking compensation of Rs.3,19,600/-. stating that her husband worked as watchman/servant under O.P.No.1 for which the O.P.No.2 is the manager since 1980 till 11.10.2003, they used to stay in the quarter provided by the opposite parties. While so, on 11.10.2003 while her husband was on duty, at camp office at Sri Ram Bhavan Visakhapatnam he suffered a heart attack and was admitted in King George Hospital Visakhapatnam at 9:30 PM and died within one hour. According to the applicant, her husband was exposed to bitter cold due to his duties and he was aged about 48, receiving Rs.2,000/-per month, entitled for Rs.4,000/-per month as his death is out of and in course of employment.

4. Contention of Opposite Party No.1 and 2:-

They denied the employment of the deceased and contended that the deceased was one of the domestic servants but not employee and that the claim was exaggerated as nature of his duties do not involve stress and strain, would not contribute death. O.P.No.2 also filed counter in the same lines as filed by the OP.No.1. They further stated that there is no nexus between the death and his employment.

5. Issues-Enquiry-and Finding:-

During enquiry before the Learned Commissioner, the following issues were framed ;

i. Whether the deceased is a workman as per the provisions of the Act and died during the course of employment and out of employment?

ii. What was the age of the deceased at the time of accident?

iii. What was the wage of the deceased at the time of accident?

iv. Whether the applicant entitled compensation. If so, what amount of compensation the applicant is entitled to receive?

v. Who are liable to pay the compensation?

Applicant was examined as AW1. Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 documents were marked. On behalf of the opposite party examined as RW1. Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 documents were marked. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Learned Commissioner allowed the claim in part awarding compensation of Rs.1,99,007/-deducting Rs.15,000/-which is already paid and dismissed the claim against OP.No.2.

6. Grounds of Appeal:-

Dissatisfied with quantum of compensation awarded, the applicant carried the matter in Appeal on the grounds that the learned Commissioner granted compensation of Rs.1,84,007/-instead of Rs.3,19,600/-, that interest would be awarded @ 24% P.A., from the date of petition till the realization.

7. Heard both the learned counsel. Perused the material on record.

8. In the light of the rival submissions, the substantial questions of law that would emerge for determination in the Appeal are:-

(i) Whether the applicant can challenge the order impugned on the point of quantum of compensation”?

(ii) “Whether interest need to be granted @24% from the date of the