UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. KRISHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) United India Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Insurance Company') has preferred this appeal against the order/award dated 15.2.2010 passed by the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Sirsa Circle whereby Krishana, Vikram, Jaibir and Pushpa (claimants-respondents No. 1 to 4 herein) dependents of deceased workman-Subhash have been held entitled to receive compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,40,386/- from Banwari Lal-respondent No. 4 (respondent No. 6 herein) (owner of Canter No. HR-22-4359). It was further ordered to pay interest on the above compensation amount at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from 6.12.1995 (Rs. 1,19,257/-) i.e. one month after the accident and penalty to the extent of 20% (Rs. 31,197/-). However, since the vehicle of respondent No. 6 had been insured with the Insurance Company (appellant), the Commissioner held that the Insurance Company was liable to pay the said amount. The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount of compensation within 30 days from the date of communication of the copy of the award/order failing which it (Insurance Company) was held liable to pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent after one month from the date of the order i.e. 15.2.2010 upto the date of actual payment.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was no relationship as master and servant between the respondent No. 6 and the deceased. It is further submitted that no accident has ever taken place with the canter in question as there was no PMR and FIR to prove the factum of the death of the deceased Subhash in the accident during the course of employment.

(3.) In order to prove the fact regarding the accident, the evidence of Dr. M.K. Soni, who is an Orthopaedic Surgeon (PW-2) is relevant, who has stated that Subhash son of Shri Gopal, resident of Village Sahuwala was brought in his clinic for primary aid but due to the grievous hurt, he expired at about 10.40 p.m. Doctor issued certificate (Ex. P. 1) by which he handed over the dead body to the family members of the deceased. Ram Kishan son of Chet Ram, employee of Public Health, (PW-3) has deposed that he knew Pala Ram-respondent No. 5 (care taker of the canter) personally and deceased Subhash was engaged as driver on the canter of Shri Banwari Lal (owner). Wife of the deceased workman deposed that they did not lodge the FIR as when she and other family members of the deceased were preparing to go to lodge the FIR with Police Station, Shri Pala Ram (respondent No. 5), obstructed them and assured that he and the owner Shri Banwari Lal would give as much compensation amount as possible. It was on account of his assurance that they did not lodge the FIR and got conducted the PMR. As the respondents failed to fulfill promise and did not give any compensation to the family, they had to file the claim petition. In order to award compensation, the following material things are to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal that the workman should have died in an accident while under the employment of his employer. From the evidence of Dr. M.K. Soni, it is apparent that the death of the workman has taken place in an accident. The Doctor has opined that the injuries received by the deceased were as a result of accident. The witnesses have further explained reasons why the Post-mortem has not been got conducted as the respondents have given assurance that they will compensate the family. Court cannot lost sight of the fact that after such incident family is in trauma and do not want to get into litigation. They prefer to settle the matter outside Court as far as possible. In view of this evidence of witnesses, the Commissioner has rightly held that the deceased workman was under employment of the respondents when met with accident and died.