Entitlement to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is upheld based on the Commissioner's findings and the materials available on record, leaving no scope for interference in the impugned judgment.

JUDGMENT

Biswanath Rath, J. - This appeal involves a challenge to the order dated 19.02.2010, passed by the Additional District Magistrate-cum-Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mayurbhanj in W.C. Case No.15 of 1993 but at the instance of New India Assurance Company Ltd.

2. Short fact involving the case is that the proceeding vide Section 22 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (herein after called 'the Act, 1923') on the strength of a complaint by claimant-respondent no.1, claiming that there is loss of earning capacity of claimant on account of accident he faced arising out of and in course of employment. On the premises that claimant was getting a monthly wage of Rs.1,200/- at the relevant point of time, he being appointed by Respondent No.2, it was also claimed that for claimant suffering serious injury, the claimant was shifted to Karanjia Sub Divisional Hospital for treatment. In the Hospital, there is amputation done on both the legs of the claimant. Claimant remained as an indoor patient from 07.04.1993 to 19.06.1993. Involving same issue, Joshipur P.S. Case No.33 dt.7.4.1993 under Sections 279, 337, 338 of I.P.C was also registered.

3. Respondent No.2, the owner of the vehicle appeared and filing written statement while admitting the fact of employment as well as the accident arising out of and in course of employment, also admitted that the claimant was in receipt of Rs.1,200/- per month at the relevant point of time. For having a valid policy No.009161 from 31.12.1992 to 30.12.1993, respondent no.2, the owner submitted that compensation should be borne by Insurance Company.

4. The present appellant, opposite party no.2 appearing before the authority below filed its written statement stating that the petition does not contain policy particular of the vehicle. Thus, the appellant disputed the involvement of the truck in the accident as claimed by the claimant and further contended that unless the policy is produced and proved, they are not in a position to admit the claim. Insurance Company also shifted the claim on the owner to prove on producing relevant documents and adduce evidence. Insurance Company also disputed the claim of claimant being an employee under opposite party no.1 therein and that he was getting salary from the owner. On the basis of the pleading, the Commissioner framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable in this court under the provisions of the Act?

(ii) Whether the injured Coolly Madhu Pingua is workman within the meaning of the Act?

(iii) What was the age and wage of the deceased workman at the time of accident and amputation of his both the legs?

(iv) Whether the injured Coolly Madhu Pingua was employed by O.P. No.1 in his Truck as coolly and receive injury in the accident arose out of and in course of his employment?

(v) Whether the O.P. No.1 the employer is liable for payment of compensation?

(vi) Whether the liability for payment of compensation by O.P. No.1 the employer can be shifted on the O.P. No.2 the insurer?"

5. Based on the plea of the parties and the materials available on record, the Commissioner answered Issue Nos.(i) to (vi) in favour of the claimant and ultimately calculating the compensation, has come to hold that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.97,598/- on the finding that the claimant has sustained permanent partial disablement at the rate of 80%, to be borne by the Insurance Company for there being a valid insurance policy.

6. Assailing the impugned JUDGMENT, Sri S.K. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company taking this Court to the plea of the Insurance Company in the authority below submitted that the JUDGMENT is not based on admissible evidence and there is also nonconsideration of the admissible evidence. Sri Dash also contended that there is no proper assessment with regard to loss of earning capacity. It is also contended that the JUDGMENT suffers from non-production of valid route permit by the own