ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. POONAM DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been filed under Section 30(1) of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment and order dated 12.12.2005 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act /Assistant Labour Commissioner, U.P., Meerut in W.C.A. 294 of 2003 by which a compensation of Rs. 4,45,420/- was found payable to the claimant-respondents along with interest @ 12 % from the date of the accident up to the date of deposit and a direction was given to the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (the appellant) to deposit the compensation amount within thirty days from the date of the order. In addition to above a penalty was imposed on the employer, under section 4A (3) (b) of the Act, to deposit 50% of the said amount.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the claimant-respondents filed a claim under the Act claiming, inter alia, that the husband of the claimant-respondent No.1, namely, Suresh Kumar was in the employment of Smt. Rajbala, as a driver of her TATA 407 truck No. U.P.-15-P-1689. On 11.06.2003 Suresh Kumar (the driver) and Kailash Chandra (the cleaner) were undertaking a journey in the said truck from Ambala to Meerut when, at about 12.30 hrs., near Fatehpur Bridge, P.S. Budia, district Yamuna Nagar, they stopped the vehicle to have a bath in the Yamuna canal and there, accidently, they got drowned. It was alleged that the accident occurred during the course of employment and, therefore, the claimants were entitled to compensation under the Act. It was stated that the deceased Suresh Kumar had a monthly salary of Rs.4000/- and, as such, a compensation of Rs.4,51,920/- was payable to the claimants along with interest.

(3.) The owner of the truck admitted that the deceased was under her employment and that the accident occurred during the course of employment. The owner, however, claimed that the vehicle was duly insured and any liability that may be determined ought to be fastened on the insurance company, the appellant herein. The appellant (insurer) took the usual pleas. One of the plea, which is the subject matter of this appeal, was that the accident did not arise out of the employment and, therefore, the claim was not maintainable.