The central legal point established in the judgment is the application and interpretation of Section 12 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 in determining the liability of the principal employer and the insurer in a work-related injury case.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12-4-2013 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S.(W/C) No. 12 of 2011 awarding a compensation of Rs.5,38,704/- with interest for the injuries caused to the claimant-respondent during the course of employment payable by the appellant-insurer.

2. The facts giving rise to the appeal may be noticed at the outset. The case of the claimant-respondent is that on 24-12-2010, when she along with other laborers were engaged by the respondent No. 3 herein (the opposite party No. 2 in the claim petition) for maintenance of work of road which ran from Langcharra Chowmuhani to Kalinjoy para under Sidhai Police Station, for pouring water on the wheel of the road roller, the road roller suddenly ran over her left leg and sustained injuries. She alleged that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the road roller and that at that time, she was working under the respondent No. 3, who was performing the contract work under the respondent No. 2 (opposite party No. 1 in the claim petition). As a result of the accident, her left leg was amputated on 18-1-2011. She was discharged from the hospital on 11-2-2011. She claimed that due to the amputation, she has become permanently disabled and could no longer work as before. The police registered Sidhai P.S. Case No. 17 of 2011 U/s 287/338 IPC against the driver of the road roller. According to her, she earned Rs.150/- per day, i.e. Rs.4,500/- per month, by working as a laborer at the time of the accident. She stated that the respondent No. 2 is her principal employer, while the respondent No. 3 is the contractor. According to the claimant-respondent, the respondent No. 2, being the principal employer, is liable to pay the compensation to her. Claimant-respondent asserted that she was 36 years old at the time of the accident, incurred a sum of Rs.35,000/- for her treatment and, therefore, claimed a compensation of Rs.8,35,000/- from the appellant and other respondents with 12% interest.

3. The claim petition was resisted by the respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 3 and the appellant by filing their respective written statements. The respondent No. 2 was the registered owner of the road roller. He admitted the averments made by the claimant-respondent in her claim petition. He averred that in his construction work, the 8 laborers employed by him were insured against accidental risk at the time of the accident and that if any compensation was to be paid, the same should be paid by the insurer-appellant. The insurer disputed and denied the claim of the claimant-respondent. According to the insurer, the insurance policy covered only his paid driver as a workman of that vehicle, but the claimant-respondent was engaged by him in his construction work and could not, therefore, be termed as workman of the offending vehicle. It was asserted by the appellant that the road roller used in the construction work was a slow moving vehicle and the question of rash and negligent driving did not arise and that the claimant-respondent sustained injuries otherwise than in an accident. The claim petition was liable to be dismissed.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Commissioner:

(a) Whether the petitioner Smti Mangali Munda alias Bengjuya (respondent 1) was the workman under the opposite party No. 2 (the respondent No. 3) who performing (sic) the contract work of the OP No. 1 (respondent 2) and whether she sustained injuries on 24-12-2010 in course of her employment under the opposite parties?

(b) Whether the petitioner (respondent 1) is entitled to get any compensation and, if so, what shall be the reasonable amount?

(c) Who shall make the payment of compensation, if any?

5. In the course of trial, the respondent No. 1 examined herself as PW-1 and exhibited some copies of documents which were marked as Exbt. 1 series. The respond