SHAKILA BANO Vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short "W.C. Act") the claimant has knocked the doors of this Court by preferring this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

(2.) IN brief the case of claimant which is borne out from the claimant's application filed under Section 10 of W.C. Act is that her husband namely Abdul Shaheed was employed under the employment of first respondent Rajendra Prasad Gupta and was serving as driver on Truck No.MP21-7544 which met with an accident with another vehicle (Tanker) bearing registration No.MH04P-775. in the application it is pleaded that the said Tanker was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, as a result of which it collided with the truck driven by the husband of appellant as a result of which he breathed his last in the accident. After having served requisite and statutory notice prescribed under Section 10 of the W.C. since no compensation was paid, the appellant filed an application for grant of compensation before the Commissioner under section 4 of the W.C. Act.

(3.) THE written-statement filed on behalf of employer. In para 4 of the written-statement the accident as well as fit arose during the course of employment has been admitted by the employer. Specifically it has been admitted by employer/respondent no.1 that salary Rs.125/- per day was being paid to the deceased workman and not Rs.4000/- as pleaded by claimant/appellant. In the written-statement filed on behalf of Insurer/respondent no.2 ignorance in regard to income of deceased workman has been pleaded.