RAMBHABEN Vs. BACHUBHAI SUKHABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE First Appeal challenges the award of commissioner for Workmen's Compensation to the extent that it grants compensation of only an amount of rs. 7366s/- while denying the claim for penalty and interest. The compensation has been granted on the basis that the deceased workman had completed 48 years of age and not 35 years as claimed by the applicants before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation.

(2.) THE deceased) who was the husband of Appellant no. 1 and the father of Appellant No. 2, died in a motor vehicle accident on 14. 7. 1784. He was driving the truck owned by Respondent No. 1 which was insured with respondent No. 2. according to the appellants, the age of the deceased at the time of the accident Mas 35 years and his monthly wages were Rs. 1000/ -. After the accident, the appellants claimed compensation from respondent No. 1 who did not bother to pay any amount to them. Neither did Respondent No. 2 as the insurance company pay any amount to the deceased. Therefore, the appellants filed an application for compensation before the Commissioner for workmen s Compensation claiming an amount of Rs. 78824/ alongwith interest and penalty of 50% of the compensation. No written statement was filed by Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2, the insurance company, filed a written statement denying everything that was stated in the application. Respondent No. 2 also stated in their written statement that they were not aware as to whether the lorry in question was owned by opponent No. 1 i. e. , Respondent No. 1 herein. Obviously, while filing the written statement not much thought has gone into the same.

(3.) EVIDENCE was led by the appellants. Appellant no. 1 examined herself and has deposed that her husband, the deceased, was 35 years of age at the time of the accident. She stated that the deceased worked with respondent No. 1 for 15 to 20 years prior to the accident and that he Mas paid Rs. 1000/- as wages by Respondent no. 1.