MANJEETSINGH Vs. UDAYSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall also govern the disposal of M. A. No. 1153/2010; 1159/2010 and 1161/2010 along with above appeal, as all of them arise from the common Award of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation. They involve common facts and question of law therefore we may briefly state the facts necessary for disposal of all appeals. On 14-3-2006, two persons, viz. Mahendra and Sukhlal died in an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. They were employed as Khalasi on the truck belonging Manjeet singh. On the fateful day the truck was insured with respondent No. 4. According to claim petitions, deceased were young men getting wages of Rs. 100/- per day.

(2.) The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation adjudicated upon their claim and awarded a Sum of Rs. 3,34,065/- as compensation for death of Mahendra and Rs. 3,36,000/- for death of Sukhlal. Learned Commissioner considering the Insurance Policy found that the aforesaid amount of compensation would be recoverable from the owner and Insurance Company jointly and severally. In addition to compensation, learned Commissioner also directed the employer (Manjeet singh) to pay on the computed amount 12% simple interest from the date of accident and also 50% penalty within one month under section 4A of the Act. Claimants and employer both are aggrieved only by this part of the direction, hence these four appeals : two by claimants and two by employer.

(3.) There is no factual controversy in these appeals. Consequently, there is no difficulty in affirming the findings of the Commissioner for Workmen that on the fateful day Mahendra and Sukhlal both met with in an accident arising out of and died in the course of their employment while working on truck belonging to appellant Manjeet singh. The Truck was insured with respondent No. 4 and the "Insurance Policy" had covered the statutory risk of two workmen. Learned Commissioner for Workmen computed the amount of compensation and directed the same would be recoverable jointly and severally from the owner and insurance company of the truck. Learned Commissioner also found that provision of section 4A were attracted to the facts of the case, therefore, directed appellant (owner of the Truck) alone to pay 12% simple interest from the date accident and also to pay 50% penalty within a month. Owner of the vehicle as well claimant want the burden to comply with this direction should also be thrown on the shoulders of the Insurance Company. This is vehemently opposed by the Insurance Company and it was submitted that Insurance Company was not liable to any further amount.