JUDGMENT :

CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING), J.

1. Heard Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Samar Das, learned counsel appearing for the claimant- appellants and also heard Mr. Alik Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2-insurance company.

2. The present appeal under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 is directed against the award dated 28.04.2021 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (E.C.) No. 10 of 2013 whereby the learned Commissioner rejected the claim petition filed by the appellants herein.

3. The case of the appellants, in a nutshell, is that on 25.02.2012 at the dead hours of night while the deceased Sabyasachi Deb was driving the vehicle bearing No. TR-01-Z-0304 and reached near Fatikcherra at about 4.30 a.m., the vehicle dashed a tree in a turning due to brake failure resulting which said Sabyasachi Deb succumbed to his injuries at the spot. It was alleged that deceased aged about 31 years during his lifetime was an employee under his mother would earn wages of Rs.6,000/- per month and beside this, he would also earn Rs.8,000/- from other business and in total his income was alleged to be Rs.14,000/-. It was also alleged that the deceased died out of an accident which arose out of and in course of his employment. Accordingly, the claimants filed application under Sections 4 , 4(A), 10 and 22 of the Employees' Compensation Act praying for compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No. 1 (owner of the vehicle) contested the claim petition by filing written objection contending that deceased was her engaged driver having valid driving license. She also admitted that the deceased died out of the said accident and she used to give Rs.6,000/- per month to him as wages and the said vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited at the time of accident. On the other hand, the insurance company through their written objection denied the accident as well as death of the victim in course of his employment and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. On the basis of the pleadings and after hearing the parties, the learned Commissioner framed issues and on appreciating the evidence on record rejected the claim of the appellants herein (claimants) by the impugned award dated 28.04.2021. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award dated 28.04.2021 the claimants have preferred the instant appeal.

6. Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel appearing for the claimant-appellants contends that the learned Commissioner without appreciating the facts of the case as well as documentary evidence produced on record including evidence of the claimant erred in deciding the issues involved and as such, the award is liable to be set aside. He also contends that the learned Commissioner also did not consider the deceased son to be treated as an employee under his mother (owner of the vehicle) for extending benefit under the Employees' Compensation Act. Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the impugned award dated 28.04.2021 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (E.C.) No. 10 of 2013 by awarding just compensation to the claimants.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Alik Das, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company has strongly opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants contending that the learned Commissioner did not commit any error while passing the award. The learned Commissioner passed the award after appreciating the evidence on record. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the appeal filed by the claimant-