IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 74 of 2008 1. Smt. Mahender Kaur W/o Late Sri Harbhajan Singh 2. Smt. Pritpal Kaur W/o Sri Ramveer Singh D/o Late Sir Harbhajan Singh 3. Km. Gurdeep Kaur D/o Late Sri Harbhajan Singh 4. Sri Ravinder Pal Singh S/o Late Sri Harbhajan Singh All permanent R/o Village Sandhra, P.O. Khas Tehsil & District Hoshiyarpur (Punjab) ...Appellants Vs 1. Sri Sukhwinder Singh S/o Sri Awtar Singh R/o 72/1 Bhandari Bagh Dehradun 2. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 47 Rajpur Road, Dehradun Service through its Divisional Manager ... Respondents Sri Deepak Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Prabhat Pandey, learned counsel for the Insurance Company/respondent No. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this appeal, the appellants/claimants have challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 23.10.2002 passed by Commissioner for Workmens’ Compensation & Deputy Labour Commissioner, Garhwal Range, Dehradun in W.C.A. Case No. 1 of 1999, Smt. Mahender Kaur & others Vs Sri Sukhwinder Singh & another whereby the Commissioner has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,46,200/- against the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. which shall be deposited within a period of one month failing which the same amount shall be payable along with interest @ 9% from the date of accident till the date of deposit of amount. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased was working under the supervision of respondent No. 1 – Sri Sukhvinder Singh as a driver in a truck bearing No. PB11B/0167. On 30.10.1998 at the time of working, Sri Harbhajan Singh was died. The claimants/appellants are the dependant on him, therefore, they filed a petition before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner under the provision of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,46,200/- along with 12% interest from the date of accident. 3. Heard Sri Deepak Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Prabhat Pandey, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Commissioner while deciding the claim petition did not consider this aspect that the respondent No. 2 failed to deposit the amount of compensation within time and did not give direction on this point. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from illegality. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has not substantiated his argument that there ws default on the part of the employer in making payment or deposit of compensation when it fell due. It appears that this plea was also not taken before the learned Commissioner as there is no mention of this fact in the impugned award. 6. After having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the impugned judgment and order passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, I am of the view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order. The court below has considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 2,000/- per month which is perfectly justified as the deceased was a driver and he would have been earning that the much amount. I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and order. The learned Commissioner in the impugned judgment was granted one month time to the Insurance Company to deposit the amount and in default 9% interest per annum was awarded on the amount of compensation. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in-limine. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 28.02.2008 ASWAL