Punjab-Haryana High Court
New India Assurance Company Limited vs Jatinder Kaur And Others on 11 August, 2011
Author: Mohinder Pal
Bench: Mohinder Pal
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
CM No.4368-CII of 2011 and
F.A.O. No.1574 of 2011 (O&M)
.....
Date of decision:11.8.2011
New India Assurance Company Limited
.....Appellant
v.
Jatinder Kaur and others
.....Respondents
....
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
.....
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
......
Present: Mr. Vivek Singal, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Meenakshi Poswal, Advocate for Mr. R.S. Mamli,
Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4.
.....
Mohinder Pal, J.
Civil Misc. No.4368-CII of 2011:
For the reasons stated in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.4368-CII of 2011, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the delay of 12 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned. F.A.O. No.1574 of 2011(O&M):
New India Assurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as `the Insurance Company') has preferred this appeal against the F.A.O. No.1574 of 2011 (O&M) [2] order/award dated 19.10.2010 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Circle Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as `the Commissioner'). The claimants-respondents Nos.1 to 6 herein, i.e. dependents of deceased Sarvjeet Singh, who was working as a Driver on truck bearing registration No.UP-78T-9761, belonging to respondent No.7-Jaswinder Singh, were held entitled to the compensation to the tune of `3,94,120/- along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. from
2.6.2008 to the date of the order i.e. 19.10.2010 i.e. `1,12,718/-. They were also held entitled to simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of compensation only from the date of the order till its realization, if the amount of compensation was not paid within 30 days. Sarvjeet Singh while in the employment of Jaswinder Singh-respondent No.7, had died on the intervening night of 29/30.3.2008 when the truck on which he was a Driver, parked in the workshop of Ramesh Chand in the name and style of Vishav Karma Truck Body Repair, Karnal Road, Pipli for repairs. The Commissioner taking the salary of the deceased-workman as `4,000/- per month and age as 35 years awarded the above compensation to the claimants.
Sarvjeet Singh (deceased), aged about 35 years, was working as a Driver on the aforesaid truck, belonging to respondent No.7. On 29.3.2008, Sarvjeet Singh along with his owner had gone to the workshop of Ramesh Chand for repair of the said truck. Ramesh Chand told them that it would take 3 or 4 days in the repair. Jaswinder Singh-respondent No.7 (owner) left Sarvjeet Singh near his truck to look after it. When Sarvjeet F.A.O. No.1574 of 2011 (O&M) [3] Singh was sleeping near his truck, on the next day i.e. on 30.3.2008, Ramesh Chand came to his workshop at about 9.00 a.m. and found that Sarvjeet Singh was dead, while he was in the employment of respondent No.7. The owner of the truck admitted the employment and death of Sarvjeet Singh and submitted that the truck was insured with the Insurance Company, so it was liable to pay the compensation. The Insurance Company appeared before the Commissioner and raised series of objections including the relation of employer and employee between respondent No.7 and the deceased. But, the appellant could not rebut the contents of the statements of applicants Jitender Kaur (AW-1) and Bakshish Singh (AW-2), statement of Ramesh Chand which was made before the Police. The appellant also could not rebut the documentary evidence i.e. death police report (Ex.A-2), copy of PMR (Ex.A-3). The Commissioner, after carefully perusing the evidence produced by the claimants including the documents placed on record came to the conclusion that it stood proved beyond doubt that there existed relationship of employee and employer between the deceased and respondent No.7. Accordingly, the claimants were held entitled to the compensation, as mentioned above.
In view of the fact that the deceased-workman was an employee of respondent No.7 and died during the course of employment while giving duty at the truck mentioned above, owned by respondent No.7, which was insured with the Insurance Company, I do not see any ground warranting interference in the impugned award so far as award of compensation to the dependents of the workman is concerned as the amount of compensation i.e. `3,94,120/- is not at all on the F.A.O. No.1574 of 2011 (O&M) [4] excessive side. However, the claimants will be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum instead of 12 per cent per annum as awarded by the Commissioner.
The impugned Award is modified to the extent indicated above.
With the above modification in the impugned award, this appeal is hereby dismissed.
August 11, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*