JAYSINGH BAGHEL Vs. NARENDRA KOSHLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Claimants under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1923') questioning the legality and propriety of the award dated 18.09.2014 passed by the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation-Cum-Labour Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner'), whereby, the learned Commissioner while allowing the claim in part awarded a total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,40,620/- with a direction that if the same has not been deposited within a period of one month from the date of passing of the award, it shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the accident till its realization. The parties to this appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description before the Commissioner.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 24.05.2009, deceased Smt. Anjana Baghel, who was an employee of Non-applicant No.1 Narendra Koshle, was going along with others by his offending vehicle "Tractor" for the purposes of unloading agricultural materials "Khatu Mitti". On the fateful day, it was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Harishchandra alias Maccra (Non-applicant No.2), as a result of which, it turned turtle when they reached near Gokhlenala of village Ghuru. Owing to which, she (the deceased) fell down and came under the wheels of the vehicle in question and sustained serious multiple injuries and expired on 25.05.2009 during the course of her treatment, giving rise to the institution of the claim by her legal representatives, who are her husband and children, under Section 22 of the Act, 1923 claiming a total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest and penalty. It is alleged therein that the deceased, 30 years old, was a labourer and working under the employment of Non-applicant No.1, where she used to earn Rs.200/- per day.

(3.) Non-Applicants No. 1 & 2, who were owner and driver respectively of the vehicle in question were proceeded ex-parte, while Non-applicant No.3, the Insurance Company has contested the claim mainly on the ground that the vehicle in question was insured as an agricultural purposes, however, it was being used other then its purposes as the deceased and others were travelling on it beyond its sitting capacity, and therefore, no liability could be fastened upon it.