IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal Against Award No. 44 of 2006 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. … Appellant Vs Mahender Singh & another … Respondents Sri R.B. Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant Sri Ajay Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 05.12.2005 passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner/Additional Labour Commissioner, Haldwani in W.C.C. No. 25 of 2003 whereby the learned Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 46,410/- in favour of the claimant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant / respondent No. 1 – Mahendra Singh was employed in bus No. UP01/3157 as a conductor. On 27.01.2000, the said bus was going from Gwaldum to Pithoragarh. The claimant / respondent No. 1 was sitting inside the bus as a conductor, suddenly the driver applied brakes, the door of the bus was opened and the claimant/respondent No. 1 fell down from the running bus. At the time of the accident, he was 40 years of age and used to earn Rs. 2,100/- per month. Therefore, he filed claim petition to the tune of Rs. 83,000/- along with interest @ 12% for compensation. 2 3. The learned Commissioner issued notices to the opposite parties who have filed their separate written statement before the court concerned. The opposite party No. 1/owner of the bus in question filed the written statement alleging therein that the information was given to the Insurance Company within time and it has further alleged that the vehicle No. UP01/3157 was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd., therefore, the liability to pay any compensation lies upon the Insurance Company. 4. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. also contested the claim petition by filing its written statement denying the allegations made in the claim petition. It has further alleged that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation due to non-disclosure of particulars of Insurance Policy. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the learned Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 46,410/- in favour of the claimant/injured vide judgment and award dated 05.12.2005 against the New India Assurance Company Ltd. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the Insurance Company preferred this appeal before this Court. 7. Heard Sri Sri R.B. Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ajay Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 3 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner has committed error in awarding the compensation as the disability of the injured was not proved and under the provision of Workmen Compensation Act, it is settled law, that the award be given when the disability be proved. 9. After having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and after having going through the entire record, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award passed by the court below. The learned Commissioner discussed each and every point in great detail. As far as the point raised by learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, after going through the paper No. 15/1 which is medical certificate issued by the doctor wherein it is clearly mentioned that Sri Mahinder Singh sustained 20% disability in the said accident. Therefore, the point raised by learned counsel for the appellant has no force. 10. No other point has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant. 11. So far as the amount of compensation awarded by the court below is concerned, I also do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. The opposite parties have not raised any plea with regard to the age and income of the respondent. The learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner considered the age of the injured/claimant as 40 years and monthly income to the tune of Rs. 2,100/- and the learned Workmen 4 Compensation Commissioner after considering the 20% disability of the injured awarded a sum of Rs. 46,410/- along with interest @ 12% per annum which appears to be perfectly justified. After considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant as well as going through the entire material available on record, I do not find any ground to modify the amount of award as has been awarded by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 20.05.2008 ASWAL