The court emphasized the summary nature of the procedure under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the limited scope of interference in appeals involving questions of fact.

JUDGMENT :

M.M. Das, J. - This is an appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd. against the order dated 26.3.2001 passed in W. C. Case No. 8 of 1996 by the Addl. District Magistrate-cum-Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mayurbhanj, Baripada.

2. Respondents 1 to 7 as legal heirs of deceased Gajendra Marandi ' Majhi claimed compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act for the death of said Gajendra Marandi who died in a motor accident which arose out of and in course of his employment as a driver of a jeep bearing registration No. ORM-3033 on 25/26.5.1996 night. On the application being filed and notice issued to the appellant-insurer as Opp. Party No. 2 and the respondent No. 8, the owner as Opp. Party No. 1, they entered appearance in the said case and filed their respective written statement. The owner of the vehicle though denied the fact of employment of said Gejendra Marandi as a driver, but stated in her written statement that the vehicle was validly insured by the appellant-insurer, disclosing the number of policy and its validity period. The appellant-insurer while denying all the allegations made in the claim petition further pleaded that the vehicle in question was not insured by it for which it would not be liable to indemnify the owner's liability. It is seen, however, that the owner after filing the written statement did not take part in the hearing of the case and did not adduce any evidence in support of her pleadings. The appellant-insurer too did not adduce any evidence before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation.

3. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation after recording the evidence adduced by the claimant-respondents and after accepting the police papers, such as certified copies of the FIR, plain paper FIR, final form, seizure list, postmortem report, driving licence and after framing as many as eight issues and on appreciation of evidence and documents available on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was employed as a driver in the jeep belonging to the owner-respondent No. 8 and he died as a consequence of an accident on 25/26.5.1996 which arose out of and in course of his employment as a driver under respondent No. 8. It was further found that at the time of death, his age was 32 years and his monthly wage was Rs. 2000/-. With regard to the policy of insurance, it was found that the vehicle was duly insured by the appellant on the date and time of accident. On the above findings, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation awarded a sum of Rs. 2,03,850/- as compensation and directed the appellant-insurer to pay the same within 30 days from the date of the said order.

4. It was submitted by Mr. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that even though the owner of the vehicle filed a written statement denying the relationship of 'employer and employee' between herself and the deceased, the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has acted contrary to law in relying upon the FIR lodged by one Santanu Kumar Sahoo, who is not the owner of the vehicle. Further it was contended that, there being absolutely no material on record with regard to the quantum of monthly wage which was being received by the deceased, the learned Commissioner should not have found that the monthly wage of the deceased was Rs. 2000/-per month.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that this appeal, being u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act which provides that an appeal can only be entertained if it involves a substantial question of law, should be dismissed in limine as it does not involve any substantial question of law. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-claimants that the learned Commissioner below has rightly appreciated the evidence and materials available on record and has committed no illegality by relying on the FIR which was lodged immediately after the ac