NATIOANL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RANIDEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the insurance company under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') challenging the order dated 12. 9. 2000 passed by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation No. 2, gwalior in Case No. 1 of 1995-W. C. A. (Fatal ).

(2.) (a) In M. A. No. 734 of 2000 filed by the insurance company, Badri Prasad Ti-wari, aged 20 years, husband of Ranidevi, respondent No. 1, died in a vehicular accident on 28. 3. 1994. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are widow and son of the deceased respectively. The respondent No. 3 is the wife of the respondent No. 2. They filed an application for compensation before the commissioner, Workmen's Compensation. The Commissioner by the impugned order has awarded an amount of Rs. 81,864 as compensation plus penalty of Rs. 40,000 on delay in paying the compensation and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation. Learned commissioner held that the appellant and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 being the owner and driver of the vehicle respectively are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount along with interest but exonerated the appellant insurance company from payment of penalty and directed the respondent No. 4 to pay the amount of penalty.

(3.) (a) M. A. No. 651 of 2001 is filed by insurance company challenging the order dated 13. 10. 2000 passed by the commissioner, Workmen's Compensation No. 2, gwalior in Case No. 202-B of 1999-W. C. Act (Fatal ). On death of Jagdish Prasad, driver of truck bearing registration No. MP 07-G 0730, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed an application under sections 4, 10 and 22 of Workmen's Compensation Act on the ground that at the time of accident which occurred on 16. 9. 1999 the salary of the deceased was Rs. 2,500 + Rs. 50 as daily allowance. The owner of the vehicle in his written statement admitted that the deceased was driver in his truck and accident had occurred during the course of his employment. It is also averred that vehicle was insured by the appellant and, therefore, appellant-non-applicant No. 2, insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation along with the interest and penalty.