KAMLA DEVI Vs. SHYAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants were applicants alongwith one Gurnam Singh in case No. 20 of 2001 which was filed before Commissioner, Workmens Compensation, Nalagarh claiming Rs. 10.00 lac compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 12% on account of death of Kuldeep Chand driver. The Commissioner dismissed the claim petition on 5.8.2003, hence appeal was filed by appellants and Gurnam Singh for setting aside the order dated 5.8.2003.

(2.) THE further case of the appellants is that on 13.8.2001 Kuldeep Chand was driving truck bearing registration No. HP -24 -2513 loaded with wheat from Rajpura to Bajaura and reached near Sarsa river. The water level in the river was low and the other vehicles were crossing the river. Kuldeep Chand also started crossing the river with truck No. No. HP -24 -2513 and when the truck reached the middle of the river suddenly the water level in the river increased. The truck No. HP -24 -2513 and another truck No. No. HP -24 -2613 were trapped in the river, Kuldeep Chand washed away in the river with the current of water. Joginder Singh driver of the another truck No. No. HP -24 -2613 had been the whole accident. Rapat No. 10 was accordingly lodged at Police Station, Nalagarh on 14.8.2001. The dead body of Kuldeep Chand was not recovered. Kuldeep Chand died during the course of employment while driving truck No. HP -24 -2513. The respondent No. 1 was owner and respondent No. 2 was insurer of the truck at the time of accident. The deceased was earning Rs. 5,000/ - per month as driver of the ill -fated truck and was 35 years of age at the time of accident. The appellant are the widow, children and mother of the deceased Kuldeep Chand. Gurnam Singh appellant No. 4 was also son of deceased Kuldeep Chand but he died on 16.5.2007 and his name was deleted from the appeal.

(3.) THE respondent No. 2 insurer also contested the petition by filing reply and took preliminary objections that registration certificate, route permit, fitness certificate, insurance etc. of the truck were not in order at the time of the accident, therefore, insurer is not liable to pay any compensation. The deceased was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. The appellants are not entitled to compensation, amount claimed is otherwise excessive. The truck No. HP -24 -2513 was being driven in violation of the insurance policy and Motor Vehicles Act. the accident was not reported by respondent No. 1 and, therefore, insurer is not liable to pay any interest. The appellants and respondent No. 1 had not given the particulars of the insurance of truck No. HP -24 -2513 and, therefore, the plea was taken by insurer that truck was not insured. On merits, the employment of deceased with respondent No. 1 as driver was denied so also his income. The dead body of Kuldeep Chand was not recovered, therefore, plea was taken that it cannot be said that Kuldeep Chand had died. The insurer has denied the claim. The Commissioner had framed the following issues : -