The right of appeal from the order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is limited by the conditions specified under subsection (2) of section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the grounds challenging the award must involve substantial questions of law. The court emphasized the limited defenses available to the insurance company and the requirement for the satisfaction and recording of reasons by the court or Tribunal before permitting the availability of wider defenses.

( 1 ) HEARD the counsel for the appellant Mr. S. V. Hegde Mukund. This appeal arises from the judgment and award dated 30. 9. 1997 given by the workmen's Compensation Commissioner, davanagere in Case No. Kanappa:cr 92 of 1996 awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,57,427 in favour of the respondent no. 1, cleaner of the lorry in question.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in a nutshell are that, while moving in the goods vehicle belonging to the employer, in his capacity as the cleaner of the vehicle on 23. 2. 1996, the claimant, respondent No. 1 sustained injuries causing permanent disablement. The claimant made the claim for compensation and according to him he was getting Rs. 1,500 as monthly wages and rs. 40 as bhatta per day. The claimant's case was that he suffered injuries on account of the accident in and during the course of employment.

( 3 ) THE notices were issued, the employer put in appearance through his counsel. He has not filed any written objections. Whereas the insurance company has filed the objections denying the claim of the claimant alleging that the claimant has to prove his case.

( 4 ) THE Workmen's Compensation Commissioner after perusal of the evidence on record held that the claimant, present respondent No. 1, was the workman, who suffered injuries in accident arising during and in course of employment. The Workmen's compensation Commissioner further found that the injured employee, that is the claimant, was aged about 30 years and he further found that his monthly wages were Rs. 2,073. 75 (the monthly salary and the bhatta to be taken as rs. 2,073. 75), in round figure he assessed the monthly wages in total to be Rs. 2,000, in view of the provisions of the Workmen's compensation Act, as amended by act of 1995, for short, 'the Amending Act of 1995', vide Explanation II to section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short, 'the Act' ). The Commissioner applied the multiplier and arrived at a conclusion that he was entitled to compensation for permanent disablement and injuries to the tune of Rs. 1,37,266. It further concluded that the claimant has been entitled to a sum of Rs. 20,161 as interest on that amount of compensation and as such it passed the award for a total sum of rs. 1,57,427.

( 5 ) FEELING aggrieved from the award of the Compensation Commissioner and of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner having a imposed penalty of rs. 20,589 on respondent No. 2, the owner of the vehicle (that is the insured) on account of the delayed payment, that is, from the award given by the Workmen's compensation Commissioner, the insurance company has come up in appeal under section 30 of the Act, but the owner of the vehicle has not filed any appeal against the award.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appeal involves a substantial question of law to the effect that the respondent No. 1, who is claimant petitioner had not produced any evidence that he was getting bhatta of Rs. 40 for 26 days. He further claimed that bhatta is not to be included for determining the wages of the workman. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that as such the compensation determined and awarded to the claimant, that is, to the injured has not been correctly determined and it is not in accordance with law, and that it has been assessed in an illegal manner and as such it is excessive as well and it is contrary to the provisions of section 2 (1) (m) of the act.

( 7 ) IN a nutshell the insurance company has challenged the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant, respondent no. 1. The basic question to be considered firstly is:"whether the ground of attack and challenge to quantum of compensation awarded is available to the insurance company in view of the Division Bench decision of this court in the case of New india Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Raja Naika, 1992 ACJ 521 (Karnataka), the decision of this court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Veronica Obrin, 1993 ACJ 758 (Karnataka ).