NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PARAM PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NATIONAL Insurance co. Ltd. , the appellant in this case, has filed this appeal against the compensation granted by the Commissioner, Workmen's compensation (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Commissioner') vide order dated 29. 12. 2004. Jeet Singh alias Ajit Singh, the deceased, was employed as a driver on a truck owned by Jagdish Prasad Sharma, who was arrayed as the respondent No. 1 before the trial court. The deceased was on his professional visit on the truck bearing no. DL 1-G 8255 for the trade and business of Jagdish Prasad Sharma and after a journey from Delhi to Nimiaghat, the deceased had a long driving which involved a lot of stress and strain. On 17. 7. 2002 when the vehicle reached near Nimiaghat, district Giridih, the deceased's position deteriorated and he parked his vehicle on a roadside hotel. All of a sudden he fainted. He was taken to a local hospital, where the doctor declared him brought dead. F. I. R. was lodged with the police. His autopsy was conducted at the Civil Hospital, Distt. Giridih. It is averred that the deceased died during the course of his employment as his position deteriorated due to stress and strain of continuous driving which resulted into failure of his body organ causing his death. Truck was insured with the appellant. Thereafter, the compensation petition was filed by Param Pal Singh, his adopted son. At the time of his death, the deceased was drawing wages at the rate of Rs. 3,091 per month as per Minimum Wages Act plus rs. 50 per day as allowances, which came to Rs. 4,591 per month. The deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of his death. The respondent also claimed interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of accident till realization and penalty.

(2.) THE main defence put forward by the insurance company is that the respondent has no locus standi to file the present compensation petition because he is not the adopted son of the deceased. The deceased was unmarried and had no dependant legal representatives. Again, on the day of the occurrence, Bhure Singh, son of Dharam pal Singh, was plying the truck in question. The deceased was not employed with the insured Jagdish Prasad Sharma. No accident took place, as alleged. The jurisdiction of the Commissioner was also called into question. The driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of the alleged accident. The deceased was under the influence of liquor or drug at the time of alleged accident. Consequently, the respondent is not entitled for the claim.

(3.) AFTER hearing the counsel for the parties and after going through the latest authority of the Apex Court in Shakuntala chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti garvali, 2007 ACJ 1 (SC), I formulated the following substantial questions of law vide order dated 7. 3. 2007: