KANTA Vs. GURVINDER KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Judgment shall decide the present Appeal filed by the Appellant/Claimant under Sec. 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923[EC Act] directed against Order, dtd. 7/10/2021 passed by Commissioner,[Commissioner ] Employee's Compensation in Case No.ECD/121/NW/18/1188 whereby her Application for Compensation was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stating, the Appellant/Claimant is the wife of late Shri Balwan Singh,[Deceased] who was admittedly employed as Driver with Respondent No.1/ Registered Owner[Registered Owner] for about more than 10 years and stated to be receiving Salary of Rs.15,000.00 per month plus Rs.200.00 per day towards meals[As deposed by RW1/Respondent No.1 ]. On the fateful day i.e. 25/6/2018, deceased was Driving Vehicle No.HR55-N-8384, admittedly insured with Respondent No.2/Insurance Company loaded with some material and heading for B-91, Mansa Ram Park, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. It was clearly brought out in the proceedings before the Commissioner that accident had occurred involving some other Vehicle near PW Rest House, Gharonda, District Karnal and deceased stopped his Truck on the opposite side and went across the road to help the victim and while returning back to his Vehicle, some unknown Vehicle coming at a very high speed driven in a rash and negligent manner struck him resulting in grievous injuries to the deceased and one Driver on some other Vehicle, namely Raj Kumar removed the deceased to Aparna Hospital, Karnal in a Three-wheeler where the Doctor declared him brought dead and consequent to it First Information Report ["FIR"] No.411/2018 under Sec. 279/304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ["IPC"] was registered at PS Gharnoda, District Karnal.

(3.) The Appellant/Claimant in the Application seeking Compensation under Sec. 22 of the EC Act on the death of deceased pleaded that only Rs.30,000.00 had been paid to her by Registered Owner through Cheque drawn on HDFC Bank Limited and despite serving of Legal Notice, dtd. 27/11/2018 no Compensation has been paid and rather the Registered Owner took evasive pleas, denying the Compensation on the ground that deceased was not a regular Employee but a casual one.