IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 326 of 2006 Farm Manager, Uttaranchal Sainik Punarvas Sanstha, Patharchatta, P.O. Haldi, Udham Singh Nagar ….. Appellant. Versus Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation cum Dy. Labour Commissioner, Uttaranchal, Haldwani and others .. Respondents. Sri R.K. Raizada, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1. Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5. Dated: 27-11-2008 UHon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1996, has been preferred by the appellant, against the judgment and award dated 27-3- 2006, passed by Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner and Deputy Labour Commissioner, Haldwani, in WCA 37/2004, Smt. Parwati Devi and others Vs. Farm Manager, Uttaranchal Sainik Punarvas Sanstha, Patharchatta, Udham Singh Nagar. 2- Brief facts of the case, giving rise to this appeal, are that the claimants/respondents 2 to 5 filed a claim petition under the provision of Workmen’s Compensation Act, with the allegations that Daya Nand Sharma was posted as Store Attendant in Uttaranchal Sainik Punarvas Sanstha. He died in an accident on 8.2.2004 during the course of his employment. The Institution had full knowledge of the accident but no 2 compensation was paid to the claimants/legal heirs of the deceased. It is further alleged in the petition that the deceased at the time of his death was 57 years of age and his monthly salary was Rs. 4,678-34P. Therefore, the claimant claimed compensation in lieu of death of Daya Nand Sharma. 3- The opposite party/appellant contested the petition before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner and admitted that the deceased Daya Nand Sharma was employed as Store Attendant in its Institution. However it was alleged that the death of the deceased has occurred in a motor accident far from the area of the Farm. It is admitted to the claimants that the accident was caused by an unknown truck. The opposite party also alleged that on the date of accident it was Sunday holiday and the deceased left the station without obtaining prior permission. Therefore, it was alleged that the death of the deceased was not occurred during the course of his employment and the opposite party is not liable to pay the compensation. 4- Thereafter parties led evidence in support of their case. The learned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,56,660/- as compensation and further awarded a sum of Rs. 59,031/- as an amount of interest @12% per annum from 8.2.2004 to 4.1.2006, thereby the total compensation being Rs. 3,15,691/- and directed to deposit the aforesaid amount within 30 days. 5- Feeling aggrieved, the opposite party/appellant has preferred this appeal before this court. 3 6- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7- Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased workman suffered fatal injuries caused by some motor accident at a far off place from the Agricultural Farm where he was employed. The accident neither arose in the course of employment nor out of employment of the deceased workman, therefore, the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner has committed a manifest error in holding the death during the course of the employment of the deceased and accordingly fixed the liability of the appellant for making payment of the compensation to the claimants due to the death of the deceased. 8- Undisputedly, the deceased Daya Nand Sharma, was employed as Attendant in the Agriculture Farm of the appellant. The Claimant’s case is that the death of the deceased Daya Nand Sharma has occurred during the course of his employment, while he was performing his duty, therefore, the claimants are entitled to get compensation in lieu of the death of the workman. The claimant Smt. Parwati Devi has produced herself before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner and deposed that her husband late Daya Nand Sharma was employed in opposite party/appellant, Uttaranchal Sainik Punarvas Patharchatta in the capacity of Store Attendant. On 8-2-2004 it was Sunday holiday, but due to some function in Uttaranchal Sainik Punarvas Sansthan, the Manager of the Sansthan had issued direction to all the employees to remain present in the Sansthan. The Manager on the date of accident has sent her husband to call Sri Ramdhari, Chaukidar of the Sansthan, from Labour set which is known with the 4 name of ‘Aath Number’ and during this period Daya Nand met with accident and died at the spot. This witness further deposed that on the date of accident her husband has got filled diesel in the vehicles of the Sansthan and has made entries of the same in the stock register. The report of the accident was lodged by the younger brother of the deceased at the Police Chauki Pant Nagar. 9- The opposite party/appellant has produced Sri Bhuwan Chandra Joshi in defence. Although this witness has deposed that the deceased has not died during the course of his employment as he has met with accident at far off place of his working site on Sunday, a public holiday, but this witness in his cross examination has admitted that on the date of the accident diesel was filled in the vehicles of the Sansthan. He further admitted that the deceased used to fill in the diesel in the vehicles. He further admitted this fact that no F.I.R. of the accident was lodged by the Sansthan. The learned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner has recorded a categorical finding that on the day of the accident the deceased was present on his duty as the Manager had directed all the employees to remain present in the working site and the deceased got filled diesel in the vehicles of the Sansthan and when the deceased was going to call the Chaukidar of the Sansthan, he met with in a motor accident and died. From the evidence produced by the parties in the case I am in full agreement with the conclusion drawn by the learned Commissioner. I do not find any ground to interfere in the finding arrived at by the learned Commissioner. It is amply proved by the evidence of the parties, that the deceased has died during the course of 5 his employment and the claimants are entitled to get the compensation for the death of the workman. 10- So far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the trial court is concerned, the learned trial court has computed the compensation at a monthly wage of Rs. 4,000/- fixed by the Government at the relevant period. The learned Tribunal also awarded interest @ 12% per annum for the period 8.2.2004 to 4.1.2006, as the employer did not pay any amount to the legal heirs of the deceased, after the death of the workman inspite of information of the death of the workman. In my view the learned trial court has awarded a justified amount of compensation and the same does not require interference by this Court. 11- For the discussion made above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12- Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 27-3-2006 is hereby confirmed. ISB (B.C. Kandpal, J.)