•^- HJGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DSVISiONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRS RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'SLE SHRS SUNSL KUMAR SSNHA, J. Misc ADpeai No.599/2009 Appeliant Respondents Non-appiicants Versus 1 ResDondent Non-applicant The Oriental Insurance Company, Main Road, Jagdalpu'r, Through Branch Manager, Jagdalpur Subhash Vyapari, S/o Surendra Vyaparl, Age 40 years Aaiomati W/o Subhash Vyapari, Age 38 years Both resident PV 29, Pakhanjur, Post - Pakhanjur, District Kanker CG Deepankar Sardar S/o KP Sardar, PV 29, Pakhanjur, Post Pakhanjur, District Kanker CG Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's CompensatlGn Act, 1023 Present : Shri Sudhir Agrawat, counsei for the appe?iant. ORDER (11th iV38y,20Q9) The foiiowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. By altowing IA No.2/2009, the documents filed along with this application are taken on record. 2) The learned counsel for the appeilant is heard on admission. 3) This is insurer's appeat under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act - 1923 against the impugned award dated rM 09.01.2009 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensatlon / Labour Court, Jagdatpur in Case No.B/46/W.C.Act/Fetal/2007. 4) Respondents No.1 & 2 namely, Subhash Vyaparl and AASomati, the parents of deceased Sameer, filed a claim petition under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Aet - 1923, ciaiming compensation for the death of their son Sameer on 20.12.2006 on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident on 09.12.2006. 5) The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties found that claimants' son Sameer died on account of the imuries sustained by him in the accident on 09.12.2006; deceased sustained injuries during the course of his empioyment; the employer of deceased Sameer and the insurer were iiable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Commissioner, therefore, directed the appellant / Jnsurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.4,52,760/- as compensation along with interest. The owner was further directed to pay penatty of Rs.25,000/-. 6) The appeliant / Snsurance Company has chaJienged the impugned award on the foliowlng grounds; "2.1 That, because no premium for deceased conductor was paid by ths owner of the offending truck, hence appellant insurance company is not liabieto pay any compensatlon. 2.2 That, because at the time of accident above offendlng vehlde driven by the driver, in absence of ^f ^ valid snd effective driving license hence also appeiiant insurance company is not liabie to pay compensation. 2.3 That, because ctalm petition has been filed by the mother and father has seiectlon of factor was to be selected on the basis of age of mother and father, for calculation of compensation. 2.4 That, because as per view of Hon'ble Apex Court, insurance company Is not iiabie to pay the interest hence also appellant is not Jiable to pay any Interest in this case fiied under W.C. Act and iabour court wrongly given finding for Issue No.-8, before the iabour court. 2.5 That, because no eye witness could be examined to prove the acddent hencs aiso dalm petition was llable to dismissed." 7) During the course of hearing, Shri Sudhir Agrawai, learned counsel for the appellant while referring to the Insurance policy in general and IMT Clause No.39 in particuiar couid not dispute that the risk of deceased Sameer who was employed as cieaner by the truck owner / employer was covered under IMT, Clause 39. 8) So far as the ground of selection of factor on the basls of the age of mother and father is concerned, Shri Sudhir Agrawai, learned counsel for the appeilant himself pointed out that as per ths specific provlsions under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, it is the age of the injured or the deceased (workman), which Js relevant and not the age of the claimants. 9) The aDpellant's next ground about the liabiJity of the appetlant / Insurance Company to pay interest on the amount of compensation is also iiable to be rejected as there was no 'Exctusion Clause' in the insurance poiicy in the present case. ^ 4 padma 10) The appeal, therefore, is Eiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice A Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge l^