NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. PAPPU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present appeal under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), appellant has challenged order dated 15.07.2004 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Ashok Vihar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "Commissioner") in granting compensation to Respondent No. 1-claimant in respect of application filed by him seeking compensation for the injury caused to him in an accident arising out of and in course of employment.

(2.) The case of respondent No. 1, i.e., claimant before the commissioner under the Act is that he was employed as a cleaner by respondent No. 2 on his vehicle bearing No. HR-a6-6083. On 26.12.2002, respondent No. 1 was on duty on the said vehicle and had gone on a commercial trip. When the said vehicle reached near Lakhoti village under P.S. Mainpuri, it met with an accident as a result of which respondent No. 1/claimant received serious injuries and became unconscious at the spot. His left leg was crushed and was taken to Civil Hospital at Etah, where his leg was operated and a steel rod was fitted. Thereafter, he was taken to Lady Harding Medical College and Smt. Sucheta Kriplani Hospital where minor surgery was done on the Left leg on 31.12.2002. Despite that, there was no recovery on 30.1.2003. Ultimately his left leg was amputated as a result of which the petitioner became disabled to the extent of 100% and his earning capacity was reduced to zero. A case was registered with the P.S. Mainpuri. Respondent No. 1/claimant at the time of accident was drawing a salary of Rs. 2,833/- per month. Besides this, Rs. 50/- per day was given to him as daily allowance and he was 18 years of age at the time of accident. Respondent No. 2 on coming to know of accident had immediately informed appellant, i.e., Insurance Company. Even otherwise, notice under Section 10 of the Act was also served upon respondent No. 1. As per him, the accident had occurred during the course of employment. By way of his claim petition, respondent No. 1 had claimed compensation to the extent of 100% disability as per the Act.

(3.) Respondent No. 2, i.e., employer filed the written statement wherein he admitted that the respondent No. 1 was employed by him as a cleaner on aforesaid vehicle. He also admitted the factum of accident and that in the said accident, respondent No. 1 sustained injuries. He also admitted the wages as are stated by the appellant No. 1. It is further stated in the written statement that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant and they were informed well in time and appellant are liable to indemnify the insured.