The insurance company is liable to pay compensation for the death of a driver in an accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

JUDGMENT :

P.K. Misra, J. - The Insurer has filed this appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") challenging the judgment of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and Addl. District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj, Baripada (hereinafter referred to as the "Commissioner") in W.C. Case No. 19 of 1994.

2. The claimants are the legal representatives of deceased Manmohan Ray who was alleged to be working as a driver under present respondent No. 7 in respect of Truck bearing number OSU 5529. It was stated that the said driver sustained severe bodily injuries on May 25, 1994 on account of an accident arising out of and in course of employment. The injuries resulted in death soon after the accident.

3. The owner of the truck filed written statement admitting the fact of accident and employment of the deceased as driver, but stated that the deceased was not getting Rs. 1500/- but was getting Rs. 1200/- per month towards salary. It was further pleaded that the liability, if any, should be borne by the Insurance Company. The Insurer in its written statement generally denied the allegations made in the claim application and called upon the claimants/owner to prove the relevant facts.

4. The Commissioner found that the deceased was a driver in respect of the truck and he sustained injuries and subsequently died in the accident which arose out of and in course of employment. Keeping in view the income factor as available under the Workmen's Compensation Act on the date of accident and keeping in view the age of the deceased, the Commissioner directed for payment of Rs. 78,824/- as compensation and further directed that the said amount should be disbursed by the Insurance Company.

5. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company appellant has contended that there was discrepancy in the name of the deceased and as such, there was doubt as to whether the claim application was by the genuine claimants. In this connection, it was also contended that the widow of the deceased who had been examined as P.W. 1 had not signed her deposition and as such, any finding on the basis of such unsigned deposition cannot be sustained. It is contended that in the post mortem report, the age of the deceased was given as 42 years whereas the Commissioner has assessed the age to be 35 years.

6. In the claim application, the deceased was described to be Manmohan Ray. In the driving licence also he was similarly described. In the post mortem report too, he was described as Manmohan Ray. However, it is contended that in the School Leaving Certificate produced on behalf of the claimants to prove the age of the deceased, he has been described as Manmohan Ram. I have gone through the School Leaving Certificate available on record which is in Hindi and find that it cannot be said that the deceased has been described as Manmohan Ram. Rather it appears that he has been described as Manmohan Ray. Moreover, the conclusion of the Commissioner on this aspect is a finding of fact not available to be raised in the present appeal. The contention is thus untenable.

7. It is next contended that the evidence of the claimant should not have been accepted as such evidence has not been signed by her. In the sheet of deposition, the Presiding Officer has recorded that the deponent had refused to sign the deposition. In the judgment, he has recorded as follows:

"..... Though her depositions have been recorded but due to mental imbalance, she did not put her signature on the body of the deposition sheets and for that reason Court has given a Certificate on the deposition sheets that, the deponent refused to sign."

Signatures of a witness is taken on the deposition sheet with a view to avoid any controversy relating to the truth of the deposition recorded. Even if no such signature is there on the deposition sheet, if it is otherwise borne on record that the deposition has been given by a particular witness, the same can be acted upon. In the present case, th