(5) (9 < -f // IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 'W^t ?7^@~ APPELLANT M.A. (C)No.- :- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH JAGDALPUR, MAIN ROAD, JAGDALPUR, DISTRICT - BASTER (C.G.) OjvJsJonBQnch Vrs. RESPONDENTS:- ^^ ^•^3V l.f^ SONDHAR S/0 JUNGA,AGE 53 YRS. ^ ^A 2. SMT. GANGIBAI W/0 SONDHAR, AGE 48 YRS. ^l^- ' "..'^' w^ ^-^ ^•, .^y f^fol^' ..^& ^ \ ^C6 x BOTH RESIDENT VILLAGE BELLAR, LOHARAPARA (PATELPARA), LOHANDIGUDA, TAHSIL - JAGDALPUR, DISTRICT - BASTER (C.G.) RESPONDENTS/NON-APPLICANTS:- 3. MUNNARAM @ MANOJ S/0 ^ FAGANURAM AGE 25 YRS., CASTE - BHATARA, RESIDENT OF BELLAR, LOHANDIGUDA, JAGDALPUR, DISTRICT - BASTER (C.G.) 4. SMT. SAVITRI CHAURIA W/0 LATE f^ SHRI S.K. CHAURIA, AGE 61 YRS., RESIDENT OF NAYAPARA COLONY, JAGDALPUR, DISTRICT - BASTER (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OF THE WORKMENS COMPENSATION ACT- 1923 ^^r- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M.A. (Q No. 1436 of 2008 Appellant The Onental Insurance Company Limited Versus .Respondents Sondhar 85 others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT. 1923 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 8& Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ Shri Sudhir Aganval, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Vivek Rathore, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 4. ') ORDERrOran ( Passed on this 14th day of March, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi J. The instant appeal, filed by the appellant Insurance Company, arises from the award dated 31st May, 2008, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation ~ cum- Labour Court, Jagdalpur in Case No. B/22/WCAct/2006/1/Fatal, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,32,055/- to the claimants. The facts, in brief, are that deceased Lamboo alias Arjun was engaged as labour in the employment of the non-applicant No.2 (Smt. Savitri Chouria). On 29.1.2006 along with other labours the deceased was going to fetch water in the tanker/vehicle bearing registration No. C.G. 17-ZC/0746 from Pariya Budhapara Nala. At that time due to rash and negligent driving of the non-applicant No.l ( (Munnaram alias Manoj) the vehicle turned turtle and the deceased came under the vehicle. As a result of this accident he died on the spot. The matter was reported to the Police Station Lohandigudha where the offence against the non-applicant No.l was registered at Crime No. yp:' ^, ..^ 6. 7/2006 under Sections 279, 337 and 304(1) of the Indian Penal Code. The claimant being parents of the deceased filed an application under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 for award of a total compensation ofRs. 3,87,397/-. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. Shri SudhirAgarwal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised a contention to the effect that the deceased was not a Helper but in the impugned award he was treated as Helper/whereas he was a Cooli and therefore the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation. Further, he has contended that the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently therefore the insurance company is not liable. Lastly, he urged that in para 12 of the impugned award it has been held that the driver was having a driving licence for driving the LMV only. With regard to the liability of the Insurance Company to the employee we have perused the policy in this regard which is a "Zone C goods commercial vehicle (other than three wheeler) policy??. Besides for basic liability, a premium for legal liability of employee/driver extra premium has been taken as Rs. 100/-. The deceased was in fact an employee. It is also to be noticed that the dnver had already been included as insured under the statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act therefore no extra premium was required to be paid for the driver as it is already referred that the driver is covered under the statutory provisions. Hence extra premium will be treated as premium paid for the <employee?. Since the deceased was an employee/workmen and hence it cannot be said ,^-^. •^^^v ^ ^L .^^^ ^ ^^., n "-ls^ ^ ..^'" ,w '^y' 8. that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants, as awarded by the impugned award. Further, with regard to the contention of the appellant for rash and negligent driving of the driver, it is only related to the effective and valid licence on the date of the accident. We have seen the certificate issued by the licensing authority Jagdalpur which shows that the driverMunna Ram was issued initially a driving licence to drive LMV only w.e.f. 2.5.2002 which was valid up to 1.5.2022 i.e. for 20 years and it was for private purpose but later on w.e.f. 18.9.2003 he was issued a driving licence to drive heavy goods vehicle (HGV) which was valid for three years i.e. up to 17.9.2006. Therefore, on the date ofthe accidenti.e. 29.1.2006 the driver of the vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence, though this fact has not been mentioned by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in its impugned award but the record shows so. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence is not sustainable. It is incorrect to say that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver the claimants would not be entitled to get compensation from the insurance company, otherwise if the negligent and rash driving is not proved how the compensation is given to the claimants. Therefore treating the case ofthe Insurance Company also, as arguments have been advanced before this Court, there is no doubt that the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently resulting death of the decease. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 the requirement is only that the workmen's injury or death should be caused during the course ofthe employment in an accident. Fl^^^ '-^-'x. ^ ^ ff ^ 9, In the statement of the claimant i.e. father of the deceased namely Sondhar, he has stated that the owner had paid Rs. 13,000/- as part of compensation as immediate relief to him. That may have been paid by the owner on humanitarian ground to the parents of his employee. 10. Shri Agarwal also raised contention that the claimants though are parents of the deceased but they were not dependent on the deceased. In the statement of the father of the deceased namely Sondhar it has come that they were dependent upon the deceased, however at present his son Somaroo is feeding them. Therefore, even if it is presumed that they were partly dependent upon the deceased, the claim petition cannot be said to be not maintainable in view of the definition of the dependency given in Section 2 (d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act/1923 which inter alia defines that the dependents means a2(d)(iii)(b) if wholly or in part dependant on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death - a parent other than a widowed motherw. Therefore the parents even if they are in part dependent would be entitled to get compensation. However, the definition confines the dependency on the date of the death and not thereafter. Therefore this contention of the appellant also goes. 11. In view of the above all the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant are liable to be rejected. The appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M-Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Thakur