1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, directed against the Judgment and Award dated 10.04.2008, of the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Guwahati, passed in W.C. Case No. 23 of 2006.

2. The appellant in this appeal is an Insurance Company who was the Respondent No. 2, in the said W.C. Case No. 23 of 2006, before the Commissioner, Workman’s Compensation, Guwahati.

3. The brief facts and circumstances which led to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

On 28.02.2006, Shri Babul Sutradhar of Shanti Nagar Village, Barpeta District (who shall be hereinafter referred to as Respondent/Claimant) filed an application before the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Guwahati, claiming that he was employed by one Smt. Tungalata Bharali of Ishapurhati Village, Barpeta District as handyman of her bus bearing Registration No. AS-15/4625, with a monthly pay of Rs. 3,000/-. And while he was so employed, on 19.10.2004, the said bus met with an accident at about 10 am at Kandukana and due to the same, he suffered, fracture on his left humerus, injury on scalp and other parts of his body. Therefore, he was immediately rushed to Barpeta Hospital, where the doctors on duty treated him and also advised him to take X-ray of the upper part of his left arm including the shoulder portion. After the X-ray was taken, the doctors came to know that there was fracture on the left humerus and thereafter, the doctors put on plaster on the upper part of his left arm, which was removed only after six weeks. Even after he was discharged from the hospital, he continued his treatment and he was informed that he has become permanently disabled as a result of the injuries.

That on the day of the accident, the Kamalpur P.S. registered a case GDE No. 522, dated 19.10.2004.

Since, he was an employee of the said Smt. Tungalata Bharali and suffered the injuries in the course of his employment, he was entitled to compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.

The respondent/claimant also mentioned in his application that he was 28 years old, and since the bus was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd., under policy No. 3153070334333, which was still valid at that time, has impleaded the company as one of the party respondents along with his employer.

4. The Ld. Commissioner, issued notice to both the respondents and, they both filed their respective written statement. The respondent No. 1, admitted that the respondent/claimant was her employee for the bus mentioned above and also admitted that an accident as stated by the respondent/claimant took place, on the date and time, and that the respondent/claimant suffered from injuries claimed by him. She also admitted that the respondent/claimant was paid a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month as salary. She further stated that, the vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 2, Insurance Company (the present appellant), and the policy was valid at the relevant time. Lastly, she also stated that following the injuries suffered by the respondent/claimant, he was discharged from his service as a handyman, as he was no longer fit to work as such.

5. The appellant/respondent No. 2, in their written statement admitted that the said vehicle was insured with their company but denies that the respondent/claimant was covered by the said policy. The company also denied that such accident as claimed by the respondent/claimant ever took place on the day and time mentioned by him.

6. The Ld. Commissioner after considering the evidence given by the respondent/claimant and the doctor, who treated him and also the medical documents exhibited, arrived at the conclusion that the respondent/claimant was entitled to compensation as per the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, and awarded as compensation a sum Rs. 1,24,160/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty-Four Thousand and One Hundred and Sixty) only with interest @ 9% per annum, with effect from the date of accident till the compensation