ADARSH KUMAR SINGHAL Vs. USHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is preferred under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (now christened as the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923) (for short "the Act") against the judgment and order dated 01.07.2009 passed in Workmen's Compensation Case No. 33 of 2005 "Smt. Usha Devi vs. Sri Adarsh Kumar and another" (for short "the case") by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Kumaon Region, Haldwani, Nainital. By the impugned judgment and order, the claim petition of the respondent has been allowed and she has been awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,19,735/- (Rupees Four Lakh Nineteen Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Five only).

(2.) The case is based on the application of the respondent. According to it, the husband of the respondent late Diwan Chand was a workman in the Rice Mill of the appellant titled as M/s Shyam Rice Mill (for short "the establishment"). On 11.04.2005, the deceased was on duty from 08:00 in the morning till 09:00 in the night. After duty, while he was returning to his house on his bicycle, at about 09:30 PM, he was hit by a motorcycle, due to which he died on the spot. The respondent claimed Rupees Four Lakh as compensation. The appellant filed objections to the claim. According to it, the deceased did not die during the course of his employment; deceased was not a workman under the Act; at the time of his death, he was not on a job and the death did not occur during the working hours. The appellant also specifically taken a plea in paragraph 10 of his objections that the work of Rice Mill is a seasonal work; the month in which the deceased died was not a seasonal month; deceased was seasonally employed, therefore, he had not been assigned any work out of season, and therefore, he was not a workman in the month of April, 2005.

(3.) In her claim petition, the respondent made certain amendments. Thereafter an additional written statement was filed by the appellant, and in paragraph 2 of it, an objection with regard to nonjoinder of necessary party has been raised on the ground that the appellant had taken an insurance policy covering the risk of workers of the establishment from the National Insurance Company Limited ("the insurance company"), therefore, the insurance company is a necessary party. It is thereafter that the insurance company was also made a party.