8. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

i. Whether there is cause of action for the claim?

ii. Whether the deceased was a workman as defined under Section 2 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 as amended up-to-date?

iii. Whether the applicants are legal heirs and dependents of the deceased workman? iv. Whether the applicants are entitled to get the compensation? If so, what should be the just and their amount of compensation? (sic.)

v. Whether the applicants are entitled to get any other relief under law and equity?

9. On the basis of the materials available before the Commissioner, it was held that the deceased Harej Ali was an employee of Md. Jul Hussain Miah in respect of the Truck bearing Registration No.AS-18/A-0320 and he died in course of his employment. The Commissioner awarded a sum of ₹6,40,710/- along with interest @ 6% per annum to be paid by the appellant. 10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the present appeal has been filed.

11. The appellant claimed that the ₹6,40,710/- along with interest @ 6% per annum is excessive and unjust.

12. This time also, the appellant claimed that the deceased Harej Ali did not have a valid Driving Licence