NEMICHAND NAHAR Vs. SHAHANA AKHTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the non-applicant No. 1/owner and employer of Driver Riyaz Mohammad Nakvi under Sec. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 now known as The Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (in short "the Act") against the judgment date 08/10/2014 passed by Commissioner, Employee's Compensation Act-cum-Labour Court, Durg (C.G.) in Case No. 103/WC Act/2010 Fatal, awarding compensation of Rs.3,37,167.00 with simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of judgment till realization, if the said amount is not deposited within 45 days from the judgment. Liability has been fastened upon non-applicant No. 1/ appellant and non-applicant No. 2/Insurance Company has been exonerated on ground that the vehicle was being plied in Nepal whereas the Insurance Company covers the risk arising out of an accident occurred within the geographical area of India and no driving license for driving vehicle in Nepal (internationally) was obtained by driver of offending vehicle.

(2.) As per averments in the claim petition, on 29/07/2010, deceased Riyaz Mohammad Nakvi, aged about 41 years, earning Rs.7,500.00 per month as a Driver under emplolyment of nonapplicant No.1/appellant, was driving Bus bearing No. CG07 LP 0344 with a moderate speed. However, the deceased met with an accident due to mechanical breakdown (brake fail) and the Bus got uncontrolled near Mahendra Highway No. 5, Police Station Dumkibus VDC, District Nawalparasi, Nepal while the Bus was carrying the pilgrims to Kathmandu (Nepal) from Durg. As a result of this accident deceased Riyaz Mohammad Nakvi sustained grievous injuries and died. At the time of accident vehicle was owned by non-applicant No. 1/appellant Nemichand Nahar who was the employer of the deceased Riyaz Mohammad Nakvi and insured with non-applicant No. 2/respondent No. 7 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

(3.) Claimants' wife, children and parents of the deceased filed application under sec. 10 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The Commissioner considering the pleadings of the respective parties and the evidence adduced by them, vide impugned judgment granted compensation in favour of the claimants as mentioned above.