RELIANCE GENERAL INS. CO. LTD. Vs. SHEHNAZ BANO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Misc. Appeal has been filed under Sec. 30 of the Employee's compensation Act, 1923 against the order dtd. 27/2/2015 passed by Employee's Compensation Commissioner, Udaipur in case No.WC-03/2009 (J.L.C) titled as Smt. Shehnaz Bano and Ors. Vs. Khushbu Auto Finance Ltd. Udaipur and Ors. by which the application of the claimants filed under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 ('Act of 1923') has been partly allowed and compensation of Rs.3,89,280.00 along with interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of filing application i.e. 20/3/2009 till the date of realisation has been awarded.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondents/claimants filed and application before the Employee's Compensation Commissioner, Udaipur under Sec. 3 of the Act of 1923 on 20/3/2009 claiming compensation of Rs.3,89,280.00 on account of death of Nizamuddin. The case of the claimants is that two months prior to the accident, Nizamudding had been employed as driver on Auto No. RJ-27-PA-0143 which was belonged to respondent No.8 and 9 i.e. Khushbo Auto Finance Ltd. And Prakash Suthar at a salary of Rs.3,000.00 per month with Rs.1000.00 by way of allowances. On 20/2/2009, Nizamuddin along with other passesngers in his Auto being driven by him was going to Baleecha which was turned turtle and he got fracture and severe injuries due to which he died. The appellant company being the insurer of the involved vehicle was impleaded as respondent and it was prayed that the liability for payment of compensation may be fastened on all the respondents jointly and severely.

(3.) Notices were issued to the respondent No.8 and 9 and respondent No.8 submitted its reply to the application in which the factum of Nizamuddin (deceased) being employed by it and that he was given a salary of Rs.3,000.00 and Rs.1,000.00 by way of allowance was denied. The respondent No.9 also submitted his reply to the application in which he has also denied that Nizamuddin was employed on the involved vehicle as a driver and was taking a salary of Rs.3,000.00 and Rs.1,000.00 as allowance. The appellant company also submitted its reply in which the factum of involved vehicle being insured with it was admitted. However, appellant company denied that Nizamuddin was in the employment of respondents No.8 and 9 and the factum of accident was also denied. Thus, the insurance company prayed that claim application be dismissal qua the appellant.