K L BIHANI Vs. VIMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals have been filed under section 30 of the workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, by the appellant-non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 aganist the judgment and award dated 3. 7. 2006 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Sri Ganganagar in W. C. Case No. 7 of 2004, by which compensation of Rs. 1,96,623 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of accident, i. e. , 7. 4. 1998 under section 4-A (3) (a), penalty of 50 per cent under section 4-A (3) (b) of the Act and funeral expenses of Rs. 2,500 have been awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents and the non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 have been held responsible for the payment of compensation and interest to the applicants. Further, non-applicant No. 1 has individually been held responsible for the payment of penalty amount and rs. 2,500 as the funeral charges.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the applicants, i. e. , the mother and father of deceased Jagdish filed a claim petition on 27. 7. 2004 under section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short, 'w. C. Act') before the learned commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, sri Ganganagar stating therein that their son Jagdish, aged 22 years was working as driver on jeep No. RJ 13-C 2001 and he was under employment of non-applicant no. 1, owner of the jeep on a salary of rs. 3,500 per month. It was further stated in the claim petition that on 7. 4. 1998, as per the direction of non-applicant No. 1, jagdish went to Haridwar by driving the said jeep. When he reached near Bahadur-garh village, the jeep collided with offending mini truck bearing registration No. HR 37-1407, as a result of which grievous injuries were caused to him and he died on the spot. In that regard an F. I. R. was lodged at Police Station, Patiyala. It was further stated in the claim petition that they being the parents and dependants are entitled for compensation.

(3.) IT was further stated in the claim petition that previously they filed claim petition under section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'm. V. Act')before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, sri Ganganagar (for short 'the Tribunal') but when they came to know that the offending mini truck was not insured, they withdrew their claim petition on 9. 7. 2004 and filed the present claim petition under w. C. Act on 27. 7. 2004 along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation act stating therein the reasons for the delay in filing the petition. It was stated that the non-applicant No. 1 being the employer and owner of the jeep and the jeep being insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , non-applicant No. 2, thus, both of them were responsible for making payment of compensation. It was prayed therein that they were dependent on the earnings of their son, as such, adequate compensation with interest and penalty may kindly be awarded.