The appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is limited to substantial questions of law, and the Commissioner’s findings on facts are final unless proven perverse.

JUDGMENT:

NYAPATHY VIJAY, J.

1. The present C.M.A is filed under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act , 1923 questioning the Order dated 11.11.2011 in W.C.No.28 of 2010 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District.

2. The O.P.No.2-Insurance Company is the Appellant herein.

3. The facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as follows:-

The Claimants are the daughters of late Poiba Neelamma (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’). The deceased was working as a Labourer in the Goods Van bearing No.AP-05-U-0040 owned by O.P.No.1 and she was being paid Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per day as a wage. While so, on 02.10.2006, while the deceased along with other labouers were going on the vehicle, in the course of employment, near Banangipittu Village, Kumada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, the said vehicle met with an accident, due to which, the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot.

4. A criminal case in Cr.No.49 of 2006 was registered by the S.H.O. Munchinput Police Station under Sections 304-A, 338 & 337 IPC against the driver of the vehicle. Therefore, the Claimants filed the application seeking compensation of Rs.2,76,255/-. As the vehicle was insured with O.P.No.2-Insurance Company vide Policy No.151130/31/05/08198, which was valid from 16.11.2005 to 15.11.2006, O.P.No.2 arrayed as party-respondent.

5. O.P.No.1 remained absent and was set ex parte. The O.P.No.2 filed a short counter denying the claim contending that the claim application is vague for want of particulars of vehicle number nor details of insurance policy was provided.

6. Based on the pleadings, the Commissioner framed the following issues for consideration:-

1) Whether the deceased is a workman under the provisions of W.C. Act and there exists employee-employer relation and death aroused out of an in the course of employment?

2) What is the age & wage of the deceased at the time of the accident?

3) Whether the applicant is entitled for any amount of compensation? If so what amount of compensation the applicants are entitled and who are liable to pay compensation?

7. In the course of enquiry, the Claimant No.1 was examined as A.W.1 and through her Exs.A.1 to A.7 i.e. Attested true copy of FIR, Attested true copy of Postmortem Report, Attested true copy of M.V.I. Report, Attested true copy of Inquest Report, Attested true copy of Charge Sheet, Xerox copy of Policy and Xerox copy of Driving License respectively.

8. No evidence was let in on behalf of the Opposite Parties.

9. The Commissioner taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence on record came to a conclusion that the deceased met with the accident while she was discharging duty assigned by O.P.No.1, by taking into consideration the wages payable to labourer as per G.O.Ms.No.30, Labour, Employment, Training and Factories (Lab-II) Dept., dated 27.07.2000 as Rs.2,700/- per month and taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 40 years awarded compensation of Rs.2,48,630/-. Hence, the present C.M.A is filed.

10. Heard Smt.A.Jayanthi, learned counsel for the Appellant- Insurance Company and Sri Jayanthi SC Sekhar, learned counsel for the Respondents.

11. The counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company contended that there is no proof that the deceased was employed under O.P.No.1 at the time of accident. He further contended that no Certificate was produced by O.P.No.1/employer to establish that the deceased was working under O.P.No.1.

12. The counsel for the Respondents contended that the deceased was employed under O.P.No.1/employer is a question of fact and that may not be the subject matter of an appeal. The only ground to urge in an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act , 1923, where interference is only on a question of law. The further contention of the counsel for the Respondents was that the production of any Certificate cannot be called for as attending circumstances would demonstrate