NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. KANTA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These FAOs are directed against the order dated 6th April 2004 passed by the Commissioner, under Workmen's Compensation Act (SDM), Nalagarh, District Solanin case No. 17/2002. Since common question of law and facts are involved in these appeals, these were heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. FAO (WCA) No. 465/2004:

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the application was filed by respondents No.1 to 3 before the Commissioner seeking compensation on account of death of Jeet Singh in accident on 10th October, 2001. The case set out in the claim petition was that when the deceased was plying the truck bearing No. HP-51 -2580 from Chandigarh to Nathpa in Kinnaur District and when it reached at Nathpa, the deceased felt tiredness due to long drive and became unconscious and he was taken to hospital at Bhabanagar, but unfortunately, he died. Sh. Jeet Singh was employed as a workman with respondent No.4. He was being paid Rs.3,000/- per month plus Rs. 100/- as daily allowance. The age of the deceased at the time of death was 28 years. Respondent No.4 in his reply has admitted the employment of deceased and also admitted that on fateful day i.e., 10th October, 2001, deceased plied the vehicle from Chandigarh to Nathpa and died during the course of his employment. The appellant- Insurance Company also contested and resisted the claim petition. It was primarily contended before the learned Commissioner that the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle was being driven in breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Company. The learned Commissioner on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,70,632/-. The Insurance Company has filed the FAO (WCA) No. 465 of 2004 assailing the order dated 6th April, 2004.

(3.) It will be apt at this stage to state that though the appeal was required to be admitted on substantial questions of law, but it appears that inadvertently the substantial questions of lawf ramed by the appellant at page 7 were not taken into consideration. The appeal was admitted on 29th December, 2004. It will not be in the interest of justice to dismiss the same on very hypertechnical ground. The appeal is deemed to have been admitted on the substantial questions of law at page 7 of the paper book, which read thus;