LAWS(DLH)-2010-10-52

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. NANUA

Decided On October 26, 2010
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. Appellant
V/S
NANUA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") being aggrieved of an order dated 30.06.2004, whereby the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation has granted compensation to the tune of `4,39,900/- plus ` 2500/-funeral charges to the claimant on account of the death of one Tek Chand, who was employed as a labourer by respondent No.3 on a Tanker bearing No.HR-47-6408 and on 6.3.2003 received personal injury in an accident when the said tanker was on its journey to Mathura, & at about 10 am the tanker had reached near Ginny factory on National Highway No.2, under Police Station Chhata, Mathura, when all of a sudden, the steering of the vehicle went out of order. As a result of it, the vehicle could not be controlled and it hit a roadside tree and due to the said impact the deceased Tek Chand sustained fatal injuries. He was removed to BPL Nursing Home, Kosi Kalan, Mathura. But there he was referred to Escort Hospital, Faridabad and while he was on the way to Faridabad, he expired. In connection with the aforesaid incident, an FIR was also registered. The tanker was insured with the appellant vide policy No.361700/31/02/03836 for the period of 21.08.2002 to 20.08.2003. Additional premium under the Workmen's Compensation Act was also charged by the insurance company from respondent No.3. The insurance company despite service of summons failed to file a written statement and therefore, was proceeded ex parte.

(2.) The Commissioner, Workmen's compensation framed the following issues:-

(3.) After recording the evidence of the parties, the Commissioner taking into consideration the last wages which the deceased was drawing and also taking into consideration his age, granted compensation to tune of ``4,39,900/- plus ` 2500/-funeral charges as provided for under Section 4(4) of the Act. Since an additional premium had been collected by the appellant under the Act they were called upon to indemnify the claimant for the aforesaid amount.