1. The appellant filed Workman Compensation Case NO. 4 of 1993 for grant of Compensation, under the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) on account of death of her husband. Bijay Ram @ Bijay Kumar on 23.5.1992, in course of his employment as a driver of Autar Singh, the respondent No. 1, who was owner of the Maruti Van (BEN-9670).

2. She claimed that her deceased husband was employed as driver by Autar Singh. On 23.5.1992, while he was driving the Maruti Van, it collided with a Truck (UGI-9845) near a pond on the Daltonganj-Ranchi Road at village Hirsa- Pokhraha in Palamu district. In the said accident he sustained head injury and died. At the time of death, he was 25 years old and was getting a salary of Rs. 900/- per month.

3. Autar Singh appeared in the case and filed written statement stating, inter alia, that deceased. Bijay Ram @ Bijay Kumar was employed by him as driver on the said Maruti Van, which was of purely casual nature. The Van was duly insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited at the relevant time and as such the said Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount if any, payable to the claimant under the Act. After filing written statement, he left taking interest in the case and did not contest.

4. The Insurance Company also filed written statement stating, inter alia, that it was a case of gross rash and negligent driving of the van by the driver and, therefore, no compensation was payable by the Insurance Company. The deceased was a third party and also was not a workman within the meaning of the Act.

5. The claimant, in support of her case, examined three witnesses A.W. 1 was father of the deceased driver. He produced a photocopy of his driving licence, which was marked as Exhibit 5. A.W. 2, Pradip Kumar Akela stated that Bijay Ram used to drive the Maruti Van in question as taxi A.W. 3 was the claimant herself. She stated that at the time of the accident, her husband was carrying passenger in the Maruti Van on the instruction of his employer. He was 26/27 years old and was drawing salary of Rs. 900/- per month at the time of the accident.

6. A copy of the FIR was marked as Exhibit 1, wherein driver of the Van was shown as an accused. In the Fardbeyan, the informant stated that the Maruti Van dashed with the Truck Exhibit 3, the Post Mortem Report disclosed the age of the deceased to be 25 years at the time of accident. The certificate of Insurance was marked as Exhibit 4. It was found that the owner was not correct in claiming that it was a comprehensive insurance policy.

7. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi, held that since the accident was caused due to the negligent driving of the Van, the claimant was not entitled to any compensation for the injury suffered by her husband. However, it was held that the deceased driver was aged about 25 years as evident from the Post Mortem Report and he died during course of his employment and was drawing Rs. 900/- per month as wages.

8. The counsel for the appellant submitted that there was absolutely no evidence on record to suggest that actually the accident in question occurred due to negligence on the part of the deceased driver himself and therefore, the Court below committed an error of record in holding that the deceased driver himself was responsible for the accident as he was driving the Maruti Van rashly and negligently. Moreover, it was not a case for grant of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, rather under the Workmens Compensation Act and as such the Court below erred in holding that due to the negligent driving of the deceased the claimant was not entitled to any compensation for the injury suffered by him.

9. Although in the present appeal under Section 30 of the Act, we need not go into the question of facts, but since the submission is that the Court below has committed an error record in holding that the deceased driver was negligent in driving the Marut