Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 246 (UTT)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Devaki Devi

2008-06-04

B.C.KANDPAL

body2008
JUDGMENT : B.C. KANDPAL, J. This appeal under section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 31.7.2006 passed by Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation/Deputy Labour Commissioner, Haldwani, Nainital in W.C.C. No. 19 of 2003. 2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that deceased Dhan Singh was employed as driver on truck No. UP 02-6514. On 24.3.1999 after performing his duties, he parked the truck at the residence of the owner. When he got down from the truck, he started vomiting and fainted. The owner of the truck brought him to his house and on the same day at about 9 p.m. he died. The deceased at the time of his death was 45 years of age and was getting Rs. 2,500 as salary. Therefore, the claimant, widow of the deceased filed claim petition before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation for compensation. The owner of the truck, OP 1, filed his written statement and admitted this fact that the deceased was employed as driver in his truck, but denied his death during the course of employment. He also alleged that truck was insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. He admitted that he used to pay salary of Rs. 2,500 per month to the deceased. 3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. also filed written statement and denied the facts mentioned in the petition. The insurance company also denied the death of the deceased in the course of his employment. The salary claimed by the claimant was also disputed. 4. Parties adduced evidence in support of their case. The learned Commissioner after hearing counsel for the parties and going through the record awarded a sum of Rs. 1,75,614 as compensation and also awarded a sum of Rs. 96,000 as interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from 24.3.1999 to 21.1.2006, the total being Rs. 2,71,614 payable by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 5. Feeling aggrieved United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed this appeal before this court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the impugned award on the ground that the deceased had parked the truck at the residence of the owner and thereafter he came to his house and died at his residence due to illness in which he vomited and fainted. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the impugned award on the ground that the deceased had parked the truck at the residence of the owner and thereafter he came to his house and died at his residence due to illness in which he vomited and fainted. The Commissioner wrongly appreciated the entire evidence on record as well as the pleadings and came to a wrong conclusion that the deceased died during the course of his employment. Learned counsel therefore urged that the impugned judgment and award be quashed against the insurance company. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent opposed the submission advanced on behalf of the insurance company and submitted that as and when the deceased got down from the truck he vomited and fainted there and when he was brought to his house he died the same day after about two hours and the death has occurred during the course of employment. 9. In this appeal the only point for consideration arises that whether the death of deceased Dhan Singh occurred during the course of his employment or not? 10. Now it is an admitted fact that on 24.3.1999 the workman Dhan Singh at about 7 p.m. after finishing the day's work parked the truck at the residence of its owner. When the driver got down from the truck, he started vomiting and fainted. He was brought to the house by the owner of the truck and about two hours later he died. Therefore, it is quite clear that the workman fell ill in the process of his work and ultimately died due to that ailment. The death of deceased on 24.3.1999 itself by the ailment suffered by the workman has not been disputed. It is pertinent to mention here that the workman has suffered the ailment just after finishing his work. When he got down from the truck after parking it at the residence of the truck owner, he started vomiting and fainted and died due to the said ailment. The opposite party has not adduced any cogent and reliable evidence to show that deceased had died for some other reasons. It has not been alleged that the deceased was suffering from some prior ailment. The opposite party has not adduced any cogent and reliable evidence to show that deceased had died for some other reasons. It has not been alleged that the deceased was suffering from some prior ailment. Therefore, the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner was justified in holding that the death has occurred during the course of the employment and accordingly awarded compensation. 11. No other point has been raised on behalf of the appellant. 12. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 31.7.2006 is confirmed. 13. Appeal dismissed.