Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 513 (UTT)

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. DIGAR SINGH

2007-10-09

RAJESH TANDON

body2007
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri Pankaj Purohit counsel for the appellant and Sri Yogesh Pandey counsel for respondent no. 1. 2. Present appeals have been preferred against the judgment and award dated 23.9.2005 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Champawat. 3. Claimants respondent no. 1 filed claim petitions under Workmen Compensation Act, for the grant of compensation on account of the death of their sons Mahendra Singh and Ramesh Singh respectively, in a motor vehicle accident. According to the claimants Mahendra Singh was cleaner and Ramesh Singh was labourer on the truck on respondent no. 2 Khadak Singh. On 29.12.2001 his truck No. UP 01/1289 met with an accident at Simkhet resulting the death of Sri Mahendra Singh and Ramesh Singh. At the time of his death Sri Mahendra Singh was 20 years of age and Ramesh Singh was 18 years of age. They both were getting Rs. 2,000/- per month as wages. 4. Respondent no. 2 filed its written statement and admitted the alleged accident. It was submitted that the deceased were his employees and they were being paid Rs. 2,000/- per month. The truck was validly insured with the United India Insurance Company. The driver had valid driving licence and the insurance company is liable to pay compensation, if any, to the claimant. 5. Appellant the United India Insurance Company has filed written statement and has denied the allegations made in the claim petition. It has been submitted by the Insurance Company that the claim has been preferred with the collusion of the owner of the truck. 6. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner after considering the evidence on record held that the age of the deceased Mahendra Singh at the time of accident was 20 years and his monthly wages was Rs. 2,000/-. The Tribunal has selected factor of 224.40 and thus awarded a sum of 2000 x 50 x 224.40/100 = Rs. 2,24,000.00. In the case of deceased Ramesh Singh his age was held to be 18 years at the time of accident and his monthly wages was Rs. 2000/-. Thus compensation assessed as 226.38 x 50 x 2000/100 = 2,26,380.00. The owner and insurance company each were jointly and severally held liable to pay compensation. 7. Against the said judgment and award United India Insurance Company has preferred appeal before this Court, which was registered as A.O. No. 129 of 2004. 2000/-. Thus compensation assessed as 226.38 x 50 x 2000/100 = 2,26,380.00. The owner and insurance company each were jointly and severally held liable to pay compensation. 7. Against the said judgment and award United India Insurance Company has preferred appeal before this Court, which was registered as A.O. No. 129 of 2004. Said appeal along with another appeal was decided vide order dated 4.3.2005 and the case was remanded to the Tribunal concerned with the following directions : "We think the ends of justice would meet only by remitting the cases to the learned commissioner for recording his finding as to whether the admission made by the owner of the vehicle in his statement on oath that the deceased persons were under his employment at the time of accident and they both died during the course of employment can be ignored. In view of above, we remand both these cases to the learned Commissioner for recording finding in the light of observation made-above. The learned Commissioner shall decide the cases within three months from the date of receiving the records by him on the basis of evidence already recorded by him. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly." 8. After the remand order the Commissioner re-heard the case and passed the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance company. 9. The only point on which the case was remanded by a Division Bench of this Court was that whether the deceased persons were under the employment of respondent no. 2 Khadak Singh, who is the owner of the truck met with accident, and both the persons died during their employment. 10. The Tribunal in compliance of the remand order passed fresh order on 23.9.2005 and has observed that the accident has taken place on 29.12.2001 and deceased Ramesh Singh and Mahendra Singh both were employees of owner of the Truck respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 has admitted this fact in his statement on oath. 10. The Tribunal in compliance of the remand order passed fresh order on 23.9.2005 and has observed that the accident has taken place on 29.12.2001 and deceased Ramesh Singh and Mahendra Singh both were employees of owner of the Truck respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 has admitted this fact in his statement on oath. Sri Khadak Singh in his statement on oath, in the case of Digar Singh has stated as under : eSa Vªd uañ ;wñihñ 01@1289 dk ekfyd gw¡A ;g Vªd 29-12-2001 dks fley[ksr xwy ds ikl nq?kZVukxzLr gqvk Fkk ftlesa eSaus jes”k flga iq= xks/ku flag dks eky p<+kus o mrkjus ds fy, yscj j[kk FkkA jes”k flag dh mDr nq?kZVuk esa lsokdky esa e`R;q gks x;hA mldks eSa #ñ 2000 izfrekg osru nsrk FkkA 11. Sri Khadak Singh D.W. 1 has given similar statement in the case of Godhan Singh stating therein that Mahendra Singh was kept as cleaner in the truck. 12. So far as the relationship of employer and employee is concerned, the deceased were workmen as defined under section 2(c) of Workmen's Compensation Act, which reads as under : (c) A person recruited as driver, helper, mechanic, cleaner or in any other capacity in connection with a motor vehicle. 13. Admittedly, the vehicle was truck and as such it was a public vehicle. If the owner of the vehicle has employed the deceased persons in the vehicle, the relationship of employer and employee exists there. 14. The Commissioner after the remand order of this Court has decided the case afresh on the basis of the evidence available on record. I find no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Tribunal. The appeals lack merit and are hereby dismissed. 15. No order as to costs.