Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 299 (UTT)

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. SALEEM

2009-06-04

B.C.KANDPAL

body2009
JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J.: This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 has been filed by the appellant/National Insurance Company Ltd. against the judgment and order dated 23.06.2008 passed by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner/Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kumaun Region, Haldwani, District Nainital in Workmen Compensation Case No. 2 of 2006, Saleem Vs. Srimati Aneeta Agarwal & another. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Babu was engaged as a driver in Tata Vehicle No. UA04A/8239 as a cleaner under the employment of Smt. Anita Agarwal. According to the applicant, on 22.11.2005, during the course of his employment he met with an accident and he sustained serious injuries. At the time of the accident he was 27 years of age and used to earn Rs. 2,850/- per month. Hence, the claimant filed an application before the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation. 3. Thereafter notices were issued to the opposite parties. On the receipt of the notices, the opposite parties contested the claim petition by filing their separate written statement before the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner. Smt. Anita Agarwal – employer has filed the written statement alleging therein that the cleaner was covered under the insurance policy. Therefore, the liability to pay compensation lies upon the National Insurance Company Ltd. In order to support his version, the employer has filed policy cover note, vehicle registration certificate, permit etc. before the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner. 4. On the other hand, National Insurance Company Ltd. also filed written statement alleging therein that the employer has not stated anything in written statement separately about the insurance of the cleaner. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner framed relevant issues for discussion. Thereafter both the parties led evidence in support of their case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 58,345/- in favour of the injured vide judgment and order dated 23.06.2008. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order the appellant/National Insurance Company Ltd. preferred this appeal before this Court. 7. Heard Sri Lalit Belwal, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Gopal Kirshan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 8. 58,345/- in favour of the injured vide judgment and order dated 23.06.2008. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order the appellant/National Insurance Company Ltd. preferred this appeal before this Court. 7. Heard Sri Lalit Belwal, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Gopal Kirshan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted before the Court that learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner has committed error while imposing the liability of interest for the period from 22.11.2005 to 22.05.2008 upon the Insurance Company/appellant. He has further submitted that the appellant cannot be held liable to pay the interest on the awarded amount of compensation as has been imposed by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner. 9. In order to resolve the sole controversy, I have gone through the impugned judgment and order as well as record available before me. The learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner has imposed the liability of interest for the above period on the ground that there has been delay of about two years in making payment of compensation to the claimant/injured as the opposite parties linger on the petition on the one pretext or the other. The record of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner reveals that the claim petition was filed in the year 2005 but the case was adjourned on various dates on the request of the opposite parties. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner was justified in imposing interest due to the delay in making the compensation in favour of the claimant. Learned counsel for the appellant could not show before me as to whether any notice was given to the employer by the claimants prior to filing of the present claim petition for demanding any amount towards the claim, and in such circumstances also the owner cannot be held liable to pay the penalty/interest, particularly when after considering the whole aspect of the case, the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner has found the liability of the insurance company pertaining to making payment of the compensation to the claimant/injured. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 10. As far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner calculated the amount of compensation considering the disability certificate of 15% as well as minimum wages and awarded a sum of Rs. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 10. As far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner calculated the amount of compensation considering the disability certificate of 15% as well as minimum wages and awarded a sum of Rs. 44,882/- and interest/penalty thereon for a sum of Rs. 13,463/- in favour of the claimant/injured. I also do not find any calculation error in the impugned judgment and award. The amount awarded by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner is just and proper. 11. In view of the above, the appeal has no merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.