(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the order dtd. 30/11/2018 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees' Compensation (District North-East) in CEC-I/NE/36/2017/3338-3340, the appellant/respondent No. 1 has filed the present appeal under Sec. 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, referred to as the "EC Act"). Vide the impugned order, the appellant was directed to deposit the amount of compensation of Rs.2,09,869.00 alongwith interest @ 12 % from the date of the accident and Rs.1,04,935.00 i.e., penalty @ 50% of compensation amount within one month.
(2.) The appellant contended that the liability to pay compensation ought to have been of the respondent No. 2 as the vehicle in question was duly insured. Per Contra, respondent No. 2 contested the submission by contending that as the vehicle from which the respondent No. 1 fell was not in "use", the answering respondent is not liable to pay the compensation.
(3.) Brief facts, in nutshell, are that a claim application under Sec. 10 of the EC Act came to be filed by respondent No. 1 (claimant before the Tribunal), wherein it was stated that he was working as a driver with the appellant for about four years and drawing salary @ Rs.15,000.00 per month. He was required to drive the cash van bearing No. DL-1L-R-2651 in which an ATM of State Bank of India was installed. On 4/3/2016 at about 09:00 am, he had parked the cash van at CRPF Camp, Okhla, New Delhi on a roadside so that general public could avail the facility of cash withdrawal from the ATM installed inside the van. It was claimed that as part of his duty, he was required to clean the van on daily basis and on the said date when he climbed on the van to clean the windshield, he lost his balance and fell. He sustained multiple injuries including fracture of right femur bone and right hip bone and was removed to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi where he was operated upon. It was claimed that on account of the said injuries, he became permanently disabled and could not perform his natural work.