NEELAM DEVI Vs. DEVENDRA SINGH YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the award of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Gwalior, in Case No. 18 of 1995 [WC Act (fatal)] dated 31.12.1998, wherein the authority has passed an award for Rs. 89,084 as compensation plus penalty of Rs. 40,000 along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum against the respondent No.1 and exonerated the insurance company, respondent No.2.

(2.) Appellant No.1 is wife of deceased Rajendra Singh, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are father and mother of the deceased. The deceased Rajendra Singh was working as driver of respondent No. 1 and his salary was Rs. 2,000 per month plus the daily allowance at the rate of Rs. 30 per day. On 17.1.1994 passenger bus bearing registration No.CPG 8452 while on his way from Gangasagar to Gwalior, Rajendra Singh (deceased) went up to set the luggage which was placed at the roof carrier of the bus, at that time respondent No. 1 was driving the bus very rashly and negligently and near Dhabua Ghati at G.T. Road the bus hit the mahua tree and fell into a ditch. The deceased fell down from the bus and died on the spot, passengers travelling in the bus were also injured. An F.I.R. was lodged with the Police Station, Chouran of District Hazaribag. At the time of death, the age of deceased Rajendra Singh was 21 years. The claimants filed an application under section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation and claimed Rs. 89,084 as compensation. Claimants also claimed Rs. 25,000 towards loss of consortium to claimant-appellant No.1 and Rs.25,000 towards pain and suffering to claimant-appellant Nos. 2 and 3 along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum.

(3.) The respondent No. 1 in its reply admitted that Rajendra Singh was employed as driver and his salary was Rs. 2,000 per month with daily allowance at the rate of Rs. 30 per day. He stated that brake pipe was burst due to which driver lost control of the bus and it hit the tree. The accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving. The respondent No. 2 insurance company filed its reply and admitted that the bus was insured and at the time of accident deceased was 21 years of age and denied that the deceased died during the course of employment and there was no privity of contract between the deceased and respondent No.1 as a workman and employer nor any relationship existed between them. The respondent No. 2 lastly stated that respondent No.1 committed breach of contract of policy and as such the insurance company was not liable to indemnify the compensation.