The main legal point established in the judgment is that the interest burden under Section 4-A(3)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, shifts to the Insurance Company.

JUDGMENT

Biswanath Rath, J. - On consent of parties, both the matters are taken up together and decided by this common judgment. FAO No.32/2010 is an Appeal at the instance of the owner, whereas FAO No.33/2010 is at the instance of the United Insurance Company Ltd. involving a common judgment passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Sambalpur in W.C.Case No.11 of 2004. FAO No.33/2010 at the instance of the United Insurance Company involves saddling of liability of the principal amount on the Insurance Company, Sri Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company taking through the grounds taken in paragraphs-4, 5 & 6 disputed the status of the deceased being an employee of the Establishment. FAO No.32/2010 at the instance of the owner challenging the judgment in the above W.C. Case where the owner confined its challenge to burdening of interest under Section 4-3(A)(a) of the Act, 1923 on the vehicle owner, the Appellant in this Appeal.

2. Entering into common argument on the request of both the Counsel, this Court finds, the case involves Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, where the claimants have claimed compensation for the accidental death of one Santosh Bag while in employment as a Helper in a Dumper under Opposite Party No.1 therein, one Nihar Ranjan Mohanty. The claim further reveals, the deceased, Santosh Bag was in employment under Opposite Party No.1, the owner indicated herein above, involving a Dumper bearing Regn. No.OR-15-6009, as a workman/Helper and he met with a fatal accident on 8.1.2004. The claim petition was filed involving cause of death in course and arising out of service and taking into account the monthly remuneration of the deceased, as Rs.3200/- per month. Owner on his appearing filed written statement. In his written statement, it is claimed that the Dumper was engaged in Dunguri Limestone Quarry. On 8.1.2004 the deceased-workman while discharging his duty in his above Dumper met with an accident and died due to pressing by wheel of the Dumper and fall of limestone on his head. It is claimed, soon after the accident, he was removed from the spot to the Government Hospital, Bargarh, where he succumbed to his injury. The owner also admitted that involving the same U.D. Case No.1 of 2004 was registered in the Bargarh Police Station. In the written statement, the owner did not dispute the monthly remuneration, as claimed by the claimants. In filing photocopy of the Insurance Policy, the owner admitted coverage of the claim involving the Insurance Policy involved therein. Insurance Company on its appearance, as Opposite Party No.2 therein filed written statement and while denying the claim of the claimants also attempted to deny the employment of the deceased with the owner, Opposite Party No.1. Insurance Company also raised a dispute with regard to wages, as claimed by the legal heirs of the deceased. The Insurance Company also attempted to deny the injury to have been sustained by the deceased not involving while working under the owner. Ultimately, the Insurance Company claimed no liability on it.

3. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Sambalpur framed the following issues :-

"i) Whether the deceased Santosh Bag was a 'workman' as defined under the provisions of the W.C.Act 1923 ?

ii) Whether the above deceased met with accident in the course of and out of his employment ?

iii) Whether the applicants are entitled to compensation as claimed or any part thereof ?

iv) Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay the compensation as is due ? If so, by whom the amount is payable ?

v) Whether the applicants are entitled to interest on the amount of compensation ? If so, by whom payable ?"

4. Advancing his submission, Sri Mohanty, learned counsel for the Insurance Company in FAO No.33/2010 on reiteration of the plea taken before the authority belo