PAVITRA BAI Vs. KANTILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the claimants under section 30 of the workmen's Compensation Act (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against an award dated 29. 1. 2003 passed by Commissioner, workmen's Compensation, District Dewas in Case No. 2/wcf of 2002. By impugned award, the Commissioner, workmen's Compensation (Labour Court), district Dewas has partly allowed the application made by claimants-appellants under section 10 of the Act and awarded compensation of Rs. 3,17,685 to the claimants for the death of one Nand Kishore. However, while passing the award, the commissioner exonerated the insurance company, non-applicant No. 2/respondent no. 2 from the liability arising out of the accident. It is against this award, the claimants have filed this appeal under section 30 of the Act. So, the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is: whether commissioner was justified in awarding a total compensation of Rs. 3,17,685 to the claimants for death of one Nand Kishore and if not, whether any case for enhancement is made out? The other question is: whether the Commissioner was justified in exonerating the insurance company from the liability arising out of the accident?

(2.) IT is a death case. One Nand Kishore aged around 25 years was working as a driver in the employment of non-applicant no. 1/respondent No. 1. On 22. 8. 2001, while Nand Kishore was driving tractor-trolley bearing No. MP 41-H 186 and MP 41-H 187 belonging to non-applicant No. 1 in discharge of his duty, he met with an accident. In fact, tractor-trolley turned turtle causing injuries to Nand Kishore who later succumbed to the injuries. It is this incident which gave rise to filing of claim application under section 10 of the Act by the claimants-appellants who are the legal representatives of deceased Nand Kishore seeking compensation for the death of nand Kishore. According to claimants, the accident in question occurred while the deceased was in the employment and it was related to his employment. In other words, it was pleaded that the accident in question arose out of the employment and during the course of employment thereby entitling the claimants to seek compensation. It was further averred that the vehicle in question was insured with the non-applicant No. 2 and owned by the non-applicant No. 1, i. e. , employer and hence, both are liable to suffer the liability arising out of the accident. The defence of the non-applicants in substance was that firstly accident did not arise out of employment. Secondly, the vehicle in question, i. e. , tractor-trolley was insured with non-applicant No. 2 only for agriculture purpose and since on the date of accident, it was being used for purpose other than the agriculture, i. e. , carrying boulders; no liability can be fastened upon the company, it being in breach of policy. Parties adduced evidence. As observed supra, the Commissioner allowed the claim petition in part but while accepting the partial defence of non-applicants exonerated the company from the liability. It is against this finding the claimants are in appeal.

(3.) HEARD Mr. G. K. Neema, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. P. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the insurance company, respondent No. 2. None for the respondent No. 1.