NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. LADA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved of the judgment and award dated 29-5-2009 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur District-I, Jaipur (hereinafter 'the Commissioner') the appellant-non-claimant insurance company (hereinafter 'the non claimant') has filed this miscellaneous appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen' Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter 'the 1923 Act'). On notice being served, cross objections have been filed by the respondents-claimants, the widow and parents of the deceased Bhanwar Lal (hereinafter 'the claimants').

(2.) The facts relevant to the miscellaneous appeal and the cross objections are that the claimants filed a petition before the Commissioner on 19-7-2007 under Section 22 of the 1923 Act stating that the deceased Bhanwar Lal, who was working as a Driver on Truck No. HR-56/G-2021, had died in an accident on 3-9-2006 while working as such. The accident was stated to have occurred near Chhitroli Petrol Pump at about 9.30 PM when after taking a break at a Dhaba for having tea, Bhanwar Lal while returning to truck No. HR-56/G-2021 for onward journey to Gurgaon was stated to have been overrun by a speeding unknown vehicle. The injuries sustained in the accident resulted in the death of Bhanwar Lal after he had been taken to Sawai Man Singh Hospital Jaipur for treatment. FIR No. 339/2006 was lodged with regard to accident, for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC. As his dependents, the claimants were thus entitled to compensation in a sum of Rs. 8,67,640/-. The basis of compensation claimed was that the deceased at the time relevant to accident was earning wages @ Rs. 4000/- per month and was 25 years of age. It was stated that the truck No. HR-56/G-2021 which was being driven by the deceased Bhanwar Lal, was insured at the relevant time with the appellant non claimant.

(3.) On service of notice of the claim petition, it was contested by the appellant non-claimant. The claimants' assertion of employment of the deceased Bhanwar Lal as driver on truck No. HR-56/G-2021 was denied. It was further stated that the accident of 3-9-2006, in which the deceased Bhanwar Lal had sustained injuries and died as stated by the claimants themselves, could not be construed as an accident arising from the employment of Bhanwar Lal as driver on the insured truck and there was thus no nexus between the death of deceased Bhanwar Lal and his employment as driver on the truck in issue. It was submitted that hence the claim petition was liable to be dismissed.