Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1662 (HP)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramesh kumar

2015-11-06

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Appellant, by the medium of this appeal, has questioned the order/award dated 2.7.2009, made by the Commissioner, under Workmen’s Compensation Act (SDM), Rampur Bushahar District Shimla, H.P. in case No. 3/2003, titled Sh. Ramesh Kumar and another versus The Union of India and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.7,21,160/-, was awarded in favour of the petitioners/claimants and insurer/appellant came to be saddled with the liability, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. The claimants-respondents No. 1 and 2 herein had invoked the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Workmen’s Compensation Act by the medium of a petition filed under Section 22 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, for short “the Act” for the grant of compensation on the ground that their brother Ganesh Bahadur, died in a road accident on 17.4.1999 at about 2 P.M. near Kingal while driving vehicle No. DL-IG-3295, leaving behind claimants-respondents No. 1 and 2 herein, who were dependent on him. It is averred that they have lost their brother, causing irreparable loss to them. 3. The petition was resisted and contested only by the insurer-appellant herein and following issues came to be framed. (i) Whether the deceased was in the employment at the time of the accident? (ii) Whether the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to get the compensation? OPP. (iii) Whether the accident arose out or in the course of employment? OPP (iv) Whether the opposite party is liable to pay the compensation? OPP (v) Relief. 4. The Commissioner, after perusing the record, evidence and hearing the parties, determined the petition by granting compensation to the tune of Rs.7,21,160/-, referred to supra. 5. The claimants, owner, driver and Union of India have not questioned the impugned award on any count. Thus, it has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 6. Only the insurer has questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 7. In terms of Section 22 of the Act, substantial questions of law was to be framed. The appellant has framed five substantial questions of law at page 19 of the paper-book. However, the appeal was admitted on substantial questions of law No. 2 and 3. 8. 7. In terms of Section 22 of the Act, substantial questions of law was to be framed. The appellant has framed five substantial questions of law at page 19 of the paper-book. However, the appeal was admitted on substantial questions of law No. 2 and 3. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that claimants Ramesh Kumar and Kumari Sumitra were not dependents of the deceased thus, they were not entitled to seek compensation. The argument is misconceived for the following reasons. 9. In the said accident, the claimants have lost their father, namely, Bheem Bahadur and their brother also. They had filed claim petition for the grant of compensation so far it relates to the death of their father before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the mention of which is made in the impugned award while determining issue No.1. They have rightly chosen the forum in lieu of death of their father before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and on account of death of their brother before the Commissioner, under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, in terms of Section 22 of the Act. 10. Admittedly, claimant No. 2 was minor at the relevant point of time, i.e. at the time of death of her brother and her brother was also unmarried and dependent on him. The claimants have lost their brother. In terms of Section 2 (d) of the Act, a minor brother or an unmarried sister or a widowed sister, if a minor can claim compensation. Kumari Sumitra was minor and unmarried sister. Thus, the Tribunal has not fallen in an error in granting the compensation. 11. The appellant has not been able to carve out any substantial question of law. 12. Having said so, no interference is called for. The appeal is dismissed and the impugned award is upheld. 13. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner at Rampur Bushehar is directed to release the amount, in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payee’s cheque account. 14. Send down the records, alongwith a copy of this judgment.