1. One Sushil Dutta owned a truck bearing registration No. ASJ-9574 and engaged Md. Abdul Kalam, Md. Akbar Ali and Md. Nasiruddin as employees with respect to the said vehicle. Md. Abdul Kalam was engaged at a monthly salary of Rs. 1,000/- and a daily allowance of Rs. 100/- for loading and unloading goods in the vehicle. Md. Akbar Ali was engaged as a cleaner in the vehicle at a monthly salary of Rs. 1,500/- in addition to a daily allowance of Rs. 80/-. Similarly, Md. Nasiruddin was engaged as a labourer at a monthly salary of Rs. 1,000/- in addition to a daily allowance of Rs. 100/- for loading and unloading goods from the truck. On 07.02.2002 when the vehicle was moving from Bamuni towards Nagaon Town in a loaded condition with all the aforesaid 3 (three) workers on board, it met with an accident at about 6.30 p.m. due to collision with another vehicle which was coming from opposite direction. Because of the accident, all the three employees sustained injuries on their persons resulting in permanent partial physical disabilities and consequently they lost earning capacity substantially. According to Abdul Kalam, he sustained physical disability to the extent of 30% causing 45% loss of earning capacity. Md. Akbar Ali claimed that he sustained physical disability to the extent of 25% resulting in 35% loss of earning capacity. According to Nasiruddin, he suffered physical disability to the extent of 20% and lost 40% earning capacity.

2. All these workmen submitted three different claim petitions before the W.C. Commissioner at Nagaon and three different W.C. cases were registered. The W.C. cases registered at the instance of Md. Abdul Kalam, Md. Akbar Ali and Md. Nasiruddin are N.W.C. Case No. 50 of 2002, N.W.C. Case No. 92 of 2002 and N.W.C. Case No. 51 of 2002 respectively. On being notified, the opposite party No. 1 owner did not appear and did not file any written statement. Consequently, all the three proceedings were held ex-parte against the opposite party No. 1. However, opposite party No. 2 in all the three cases (National Insurance Company Limited), appeared and submitted written statement denying all the averments of fact made in the application and prayed that the three claim cases be rejected.

3. The stand taken by the insurance company is that the claim petition did not disclose all necessary material particulars and relevant documents were not annexed. The employer employee relationship between the three claimants and the opposite party No. 1 was also denied by the insurance company. Apart from that, the factum of accident, the age and monthly wage paid by the owner Sushil Dutta was denied by the opposite party No. 2, insurance company. However, in paragraph 12 of the written statement it was admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the opposite party No. 2 at the relevant time and liability, if there be any, would be only limited and subject to conditions mentioned in terms and conditions of the policy.

4. The W.C. Commissioner upon receipt the pleadings of the parties allowed them to lead evidence in favour of their respective cases whereupon all the three claimants examined themselves in addition to their respective doctor.

5. In N.W.C. Case No. 50 of 2002, out of which the present MFA No. 15 of 2004 has arisen, the workman stated that he was engaged as a labourer with respect to the vehicle bearing registration No. ASJ-9574 belonging to Sushil Dutta at a monthly salary of Rs. 1,000/- in addition to daily allowance of Rs. 100/- and that he had been working. He reiterated the averments made in the claim petition that on 07.02.2002, the vehicle had met with an accident when another vehicle coming from opposite direction collided head on with their vehicle for which he fell down from the vehicle and received injuries on his chest and the waist. According to him even after having received treatment from Dr. Anil Lalung, he was not totally cured and so he prayed that compensation of Rs. 2,00,000