P.K. Musahary, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. Guite, learned Counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.N. Meitei, learned Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Mr. Joel J. Denga, learned Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 2.

2. This appeal is directed against judgment and award dated 19.12.2007 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Aizawl, in W.C. Case No. 6 of 2006 awarding a sum of Rs. 3,92,000/- (Rupees three lakhs ninety two thousand) only, in favour of the claimant and against respondent insurer (respondent No. 1) to be paid within one month and with a further direction to pay a penal interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of payment fell due till realisation of the amount.

3. Adverting to the short facts : One Lalramzauva, aged about 15 years, died in a motor accident on 1.4.2006 at Seiling in Aizawl District while travelling in a truck bearing Registration No. MZ-01A-3144 which fell down in a gorge. The deceased's father Sri Thawmlien, through his attorney Vanmawia, filed a petition claiming Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation pleading that his son was employed as Handyman at a monthly salary of Rs. 3500/- by one Sri R. Vanlalruata, owner of the truck and he died during the course of his employment. It was registered as W.C. Case No. 6 of 2006. Both the employer as Opposite Party No. 1 and insurer as Opposite Party No. 2 filed written statements and contested the case. The learned Commissioner, on consideration of the evidence and materials on record and after hearing the parties, passed the impugned Judgment and Award as stated above.

4. The pleas taken by the employer before the learned Commissioner are that he employed the deceased workman as Handyman-cum-Mechanic w.e.f. 1.2.2005 and paid Rs. 3500/- p.m. as his salary but subsequently, he decided to terminate him due to his unsatisfactory performance. However, on request of the deceased, he was retained at a reduced monthly salary of Rs. 1000/- only since 1.4.2005 till the date of accident on 1.4.2006. The insurer, besides denying the liability, demanded dismissal of the petition on the grounds that the claim petition was not maintainable, there was no cause of action, the attorney has no locus-standi to file the petition, sufficient Court Fee was not paid, notice under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as W.C. Act) was not served upon the employer, the insured violated the terms and conditions of the insurance contract for having failed to properly maintain his vehicle, the deceased did not die during the course of employment and he was not paid Rs. 3500/- p.m. as his monthly salary.

Although no issue was framed, the learned Commissioner considered the following points:

(a Whether the deceased was a workman within the meaning of the Act;

(b) Whether the accident arose out of and in the course of deceased's employment;

(c) Whether the amount of compensation claimed is due, or any part of that amount;

(d) Whether the Opposite Party is liable to pay such compensation as is due.

The learned Commissioner found and held that the deceased was a workman within the meaning of the workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, inasmuch as he was a Handyman-cum-Mechanic at the time of this death and he died while travelling in the accident truck as a Handyman during and in the course of his employment. On consideration of Income Certificate (Exhibit C-13/D-13) and evidence of the employer, the learned Commissioner came to a conclusion that "the reduction of wages of the deceased was interim and not final and the said interim arrangement was made not due to the fault of the deceased but due to the fact that there has been a momentary decrease in the business of the owner and the employment of the deceased was a continuous one without any change in the terms of the employment and in any case, the other workmen in his workshop were continued to be paid the same amount of salary whether there is work or not." The learned