JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. I. A. Talukdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1.

2. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the Act of 1923) against the judgment and order dated 11.12.2013 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Nagaon in W.C. Case No.95/2005.

3. The instant matter has come up before this Court for admission and to ascertain as to whether any substantial question of law arises in the appeal. For ascertaining as to whether the three substantial questions of law so proposed in the Memo of Appeal arises in the facts of the instant case, it would be relevant to take note of the brief facts of the instant case.

4. While the respondent No.1 who is the claimant on 07.10.2004 was going by the wheat loaded vehicle No.AS-02/A-1871 over the rough way of Silingoni Agricultural Farm, the vehicle suddenly capsized and turned turtle to the nearby pond due to soft soil of the path and the respondent No.1/the claimant sustained injuries. The respondent No.1 was thereupon removed to B. P. Civil Hospital, Nagaon for his treatment. The Nagaon P.S. Traffic Branch entered a GD Entry No.163 dated 07.10.2004 for the said matter of accident. The respondent No.1 as claimant thereupon filed the claim proceedings contending that he has become physically disable due to his fractured injury and unable to do the handyman job following his accident and as such he is entitled to get compensation as per the provisions of the Act of 1923. It is the further contention of the claimant in the claim proceedings that the owner of the truck was aware about the accident and his injury and as such notice before claiming the compensation is not required in the case.

5. Pursuant to the filing of the claim proceedings, notices were issued to the owner of the offending vehicle as well as the appellant Insurance Company. The claim proceedings proceeded ex-parte against the owner of the offending vehicle whereas the appellant Insurance Company has filed the written statement refuting the contentions of the claimant on various grounds and denied the liability of the claim. Thereupon, the claimant adduced himself as PW1 and submitted various documents to prove, like Accident Information Report, Injury Report, X-Ray Report and Disability Certificate, testified regarding disability and also loss of earning capacity of the claimant.

6. It is relevant herein to take note of that one Mr. L. C. Nath, a General Surgeon deposed as PW2 who had confirmed the injury and the disability of the claimant. On behalf of the appellant Insurance Company, one Sri Sunil Saikia, a Senior Assistant of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Nagaon Branch adduced evidence and exhibited a certified Policy Certificate as Exhibit-A. In his evidence, he had stated that the vehicle bearing No.AS-02/A-1871 was a goods carrying vehicle owned by Sri Bablu Sen and it was insured with the appellant Insurance Company vide Insurance Policy valid from 21.06.2004 to 20.06.2005. Upon cross-examination, he had stated that the Insurance Policy was a package policy for Zone-C goods carrying vehicle and they received Rs.8003/-from the insured against the policy. The witness of the appellant Insurance Company had also admitted that the basic liability covers all. He further admitted that in Exhibit-A, i.e., the Insurance Policy there is no mention that the insured did not pay the premium for the employees of the vehicle.

7. The learned Court of the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation, Nagaon, on the basis of the pleadings, framed as many as three issues which are as under:-

(i) Whether the claimant was an employee as per law? And he sustained injury during the course of his employment under O.P. No.1?

(ii) Whether the injury sustained by the claimant cause any permanent disability with consequent loss of his earning capacity?

(iii) Whether the claim for co