Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1764 (PNJ)

New India Assurance Company Limited v. Gian Devi

2011-09-19

MOHINDER PAL

body2011
JUDGMENT Mr. Mohinder Pal, J.: - CM No.23374-CII of 2009: 1. For the reasons stated in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.23374-CII of 2009, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the delay of 40 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned. F.A.O. No.4802 of 2009 (O&M): 2. The New India Assurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Insurance Company’) has preferred this appeal against the order/award dated 23.3.2009 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, Circle Sonepat-1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commissioner’). The claimants (respondents No.1 to 4 herein) i.e. dependents of deceased Jagbir Singh, who was working as a Driver on Tata 407 vehicle bearing registration No.HR-69-2755, belonging to respondent No.5-Gulab Singh, were held entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs.3,06,180/-. It was also ordered that if the amount of compensation is not deposited within 30 days, then the appellant is liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the order till its realization. Jagbir Singh while in the employment of Gulab Singh-respondent No.5, was driving the above vehicle and was in the area of Police Station Shah Ganj, Agra (UP). He developed some health problems while on his driving seat and shifted by the people of that area to S.N. Medical College, Agra, where he was declared dead. The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted by the doctors on the next day i.e. on 10.6.2007. The Police of Police Station Shah Ganj, Agra got the postmortem report from the hospital at Agra after completing the formalities under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The Commissioner taking the salary of the deceased-workman as Rs.4,000/- per month and age as 50 years awarded the above compensation to the claimants. 3. I have heard Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate appearing for the appellant, Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate appearing for respondent No.5- owner of the vehicle and have gone through the record carefully. However, no one has appeared on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 (claimants). 4. 3. I have heard Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate appearing for the appellant, Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate appearing for respondent No.5- owner of the vehicle and have gone through the record carefully. However, no one has appeared on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 (claimants). 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued before me that the deceased workman did not die during the course of his employment and there was no relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent No.5-owner of the vehicle, the award of the Commission is on the higher side and the interest directed to be payable from the date of order is not sustainable. She relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and another, 2007 ACJ 1. On the other side, learned counsel for respondent No.5 argued that the award passed by the Commissioner is well reasoned and no interference is required. 5. Jagbir Singh (deceased), aged about 50 years, was working as a driver on the aforesaid vehicle, belonging to respondent No.5. On 9.6.2007, Jagbir Singh on the direction of his owner had been on duty on his vehicle in the area of Shah Ganj, Agra. He developed some health problems while driving the above vehicle and he parked the same on the road side, from where he was taken to S.N. Medical College, Agra, where he was declared dead. So, he was in the employment of respondent No.5 at the time of his death and doing his duties on the above vehicle. The owner of the vehicle admitted the employment and death of Jagbir Singh and submitted that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, so it was liable to pay the compensation. The Insurance Company appeared before the Commissioner and raised series of objections including the relationship of employer and employee between respondent No.5 and the deceased. But, the appellant could not lead any evidence to prove the same. The appellant has failed to examine any witness in its evidence to prove that the deceased was not working as Driver with respondent No.5. After the amendment in the Act by Act No.46 of 2000 in Section 2(n) of the Act, even casual workman employed for a single day is described as workman for the purpose of the Act. The appellant has failed to examine any witness in its evidence to prove that the deceased was not working as Driver with respondent No.5. After the amendment in the Act by Act No.46 of 2000 in Section 2(n) of the Act, even casual workman employed for a single day is described as workman for the purpose of the Act. If such workman died during the course of his duty, his dependents are entitled for the amount of compensation. The claimants had produced documentary evidence i.e. death certificate (Ex.P-1), copy of PMR (Ex.P-2), police report (Ex.P.3) and application for receiving dead body (Ex.P.4) and the driving licence of the deceased (Ex.P.5) in their evidence which could not be rebutted by the appellant. The Commissioner, after carefully appreciating the evidence produced by the claimants including the documents placed on record came to the conclusion that it stood proved beyond doubt that there existed relationship of employee and employer between the deceased and respondent No.5. Accordingly, the claimants were held entitled to the compensation, as mentioned above. 6. The facts of the case Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and another (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable in the present case, as the deceased workman in that case was working as cleaner and it was held that the job of the cleaner was not strenuous and he was merely getting down from the vehicle when he suffered heart attack. In the present case, the deceased workman was working as driver on the above vehicle and while driving he had developed health problems, which is due to the stress or strain and strenuous duty of the driver as the driver has to do work for long hours and it can not be held that he had not suffered the heart disease during the course of his employment. 7. In view of the fact that the deceased-workman was an employee of respondent No.5 and died during the course of employment while giving duty at the vehicle mentioned above, owned by respondent No.5, which was insured with the Insurance Company, I do not see any ground warranting interference in the impugned award so far as award of compensation to the dependents of the workman is concerned as the amount of compensation i.e. Rs.3,06,180/- is not at all on the excessive side. However, the appellant has submitted that the awarded amount has already been deposited by it vide receipt dated 21.7.2009 before the Commissioner, Circle-I, Sonepat i.e. after 30 days of the passing of the award i.e. on 23.3.2009. Hence, the claimants will be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum instead of 12 per cent per annum as awarded by the Commissioner. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. 8. With the above modification in the impugned award, this appeal is hereby dismissed. -------------------