Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Mr. B. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/Claimant. None appears for the respondent No.2 on call.

2. The case of the respondent No.1/claimant, namely, Md. Abdul Rahim is that in course of employment as a handyman in bus bearing registration No. AS-01-C-2608, his son Toibur Rahman died in a road traffic accident on 22.12.2002, when at about 9:00 am, due to steering failure, the said bus which was going from Nagaon towards Kaziranga hit a roadside tree and turned turtle at Gumuthagaon under Nagaon Police Station. The driver had a valid licence and the said bus was insured with the appellant.

3. The respondent No.1/claimant, having lost his 21 year old son in a motor vehicle accident in course of employment, filed a petition before the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Nagaon (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Commissioner” for brevity), claiming compensation. The respondent No.2 herein, namely, Sri D.K. Bora, who was the owner of the bus filed his written statement, but thereafter, did not participate in the case before the learned Commissioner. However, the respondent No.1/claimant had summoned the Respondent No.1 to give his evidence in the case. He was, however, examined as OP-1. The said claim was allowed by the judgment and award dated 26.11.2008, passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Nagaon (now Employees Compensation), by awarding a sum of Rs.3,27,865/- (inclusive of funeral expenses) in favour of the respondent No.1/claimant, which was directed to be paid by the appellant. The said judgment and award is challenged in this appeal.

4. This appeal was admitted by order dated 20.08.2010 on the following substantial questions of law:-

1. Whether the daily allowance received by the claimant can form a part of the monthly wages?

2. Whether the liability to pay the compensation amount awarded to the Handyman can be fastened upon the assurance of the appellant in absence of policy coverage for him?

5. The main ground for challenging the said judgment and award is that the respondent No.2 had not insured the bus in respect of any claim in respect of workman like handyman employed therein. No payment of any extra-premium was paid by the respondent No.2 and, as such, no award for paying any compensation could have been made against the appellant. This is the only short point involved in the present case.

6. In respect of this ground, the learned Commissioner had recorded in the impugned judgment and award that the appellant had argued that the indemnifier may be made liable only if it is satisfactorily proved (i) that there is a proper and valid insurance policy covering the risk of the owner of the vehicle; (ii) that the alleged workman was employed by the owner of the vehicle and the injury was sustained by him in course of and out of his employment; and (iii) that the driver of the vehicle had a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time of the alleged accident. The appellant had taken a plea in its additional written statement that the appellant had not realized any extra premium from the respondent No.2 for the coverage of the risk of the handyman at the relevant time of accident, as such, the appellant was not liable to pay any compensation to the respondent No.1/claimant as per certificate of policy conditions.

7. The respondent No.1 entered the witness box as PW-1 to examine himself and he was cross examined by the appellant. The respondent No.1/claimant summoned the respondent No.2 to give his evidence and he was examined as OP-1. The appellant examined one Bhupen Kumar Bhattacharya, as DW-1, who was working as the Assistant Manager of Nagaon Branch of the appellant. He admitted that the written statement filed by the appellant was signed by one Mr. Yadav, the Assistant Manager of Regional Office of the appellant. The written statement of the appellant was marked as Ext.A and the additional