SUBHASH AND ORS. Vs. JAWAHARLAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONSIDERING the limited issue arising ADMIT. Heard finally with consent of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties.

(2.) THE present appellants are the parents of one Ramprasad S/o Subhash Ingale who was in employment with respondent No. 1 as a driver. During the course of employment, when said Ramprasad was driving a truck from Pune to Raipur, the same met with an accident on 4.6.2012 resulting in death of said Ramprasad. The parents, therefore, filed proceedings under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, "the said Act"). The said proceedings were contested by respondent No. 2 Insurance Company with whom the said truck was insured. The learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation after considering on record, held that deceased Ramprasad was in employment of respondent No. 1 and that he had died during the course of employment. It further recorded a finding that said Ramprasad was getting salary of Rs. 12,000/ -per month and Bhatta of Rs. 100/ - per day. However, the learned Commissioner found that there was some variance about the age of deceased as regards the age mentioned in the driving licence and the age as mentioned in the postmortem report. The learned Commissioner, therefore, proceeded to deny claim for compensation on the ground that the specific age of the deceased was not available and hence, compensation could not be determined. Hence, by judgment dated 10.9.2013, the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation rejected the said application.

(3.) SHRI D.V. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 employer, supported the impugned judgment. It was submitted that in absence of age of the deceased, the learned Commissioner was justified in refusing to grant compensation.