LAWS(UTN)-2005-3-39

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. GOPAL SINGH

Decided On March 10, 2005
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Appellant
V/S
GOPAL SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company/Opp. party under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short the Act) against the Judgment and award dated 27.8.1999 passed by Commissioner for Workmen Compensation & Assistant Labour Commissioner (U.P.) Rishikesh (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner) in WCA Case No.2 of 1999, whereby the Commissioner has ordered the Opp. party No. 2 -Insurance Company to pay Rs. 2,63,940/ - as compensation to the claimant within a period of 30 days from the date of order, failing which the Insurance Company will also be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that injured/claimant was employed under the employment of Opp. party No. 1 in his Mini Truck No. UP 09 -161 on monthly salary of Rs.3000/ -. On 10.6.1997 during the course of employment the said truck turned turtle due to bursting of front tyre. The claimant -Gopal Singh sustained injuries in this accident and his right hand has become worthless due to said injuries. He has totally lost his capability for driving work. He was 22 -year old on the date of accident and now he has become disabled for any work. The injured -claimant filed the petition for compensation against the Opp. parties.

(3.) THE Opp. parties contested the case by filing their separate written statements. The Opp. party No. 1 did not dispute about the said accident, disability of the claimant due to injuries received in the said accident and insurance of the truck. He further pleaded that the offending mini Truck (No. UP 09 -161) was insured with the Opp. party No.2 -Insurance Company on the date of accident and the whole liability of compensation is of Insurance Company. The Opp. party No.2 -Insurance Company in its written statement admitted the insurance of the offending vehicle and denied rests of the allegations of the claim petition due to lack of knowledge.