GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MUSTKEEM & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.(hereinafter 'the appellant') to challenge the legality and correctness of an Order dated 13.05.2016 of learned Commissioner, Employee's Compensation (hereinafter 'the Commissioner') whereby compensation of Rs. 8,90,480/- was awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased Begum Monna @ Muna. The appeal is contested by respondent No.1-Mustkeem.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Reliance has been placed by the respondents on Malati Sardar vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd. and Ors., 2016 ACJ 542 and Fahim Ahmad and Ors. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., 2014 ACJ 1254. Claim Petition was filed by respondent No.1 Mustkeem (hereinafter 'the petitioner') before the Commissioner on 24.11.2013. It was averred that Begum Monna @ Muna (his wife) was employed as a 'helper' for loading and unloading of the tractor for the last five months on the vehicle bearing No.HR-60D-1284 (Tractor) owned by Surender (hereinafter 'the respondent No.1'). She died on 03.12.2011 out of and during the course of employment. On 03.12.2011, the deceased was on duty on the tractor which was on its assigned trip from Tamsa to Ugra Khedi for fetching sand for civil repair work at tube well. The sand was loaded from Tamsa and when it was approaching toward its destination to the tube well, all of a sudden on the road, a man emerged suddenly and the driver tried to evade hitting the person and swerved his tractor towards right hand and in this process, the deceased lost her balance and fell down from the tractor. She came underneath the tyre of the vehicle and sustained grievous injuries. She was taken to hospital promptly where she succumbed to the injuries. Post-mortem examination was conducted.

(3.) It was further averred that the vehicle was owned by respondent No.1 at the time of incident and it was insured with Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd (hereinafter 'the respondent No.2') vide policy No.2004702343001329 for the period from 05.01.2011 to 04.01.2012 and an additional premium was charged by respondent No.2 from respondent No.1 under Employee's Compensation Act. It was further claimed that the victim was drawing wages @ Rs. 8,000/- i.e. Rs. 270/- per day; she was aged about 22 years at the time of her death.