VEENA KUMARI Vs. RAJPREET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although the substantial question of law is not framed in the memo of parties as provided in the first proviso of Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, which has been rechristened as the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, yet during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants has raised the following substantial question of law :-

(2.) In short, the appellants are the parents of deceased Kapil Dev who was the employee/respondent of respondent No. 1 on his car bearing registration No. CH-02-1614 on a monthly salary of Rs. 4500/- from the past three years when on the intervening night of 15/16.6.2009 in the course of his employment, he was murdered by robbers. He was a bachelor of 24 years of age. The appellants filed the petition for compensation under the Act in which as many as four issues were framed. Both the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence.

(3.) Under issue Nos. 1 and 2, it was held that deceased was the employee of respondent No. 1 who expired during the course of his employment.