IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 236 of 2008 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. … Appellant Vs Rukam Singh & another … Respondents Sri V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri I.P. Kohli, learned counsel for the appellant Sri Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation’s Act, 1923 has been filed by the appellant/Insurer against the judgment and award dated 24.04.2008 passed by learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner/Deputy Labour Commissioner, Garhwal Region, Dehradun in W.C.A. Case No. 5 of 2006, Rukam Singh Vs Kripal Singh & another whereby the learned Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 4,35,369/- against the appellant and in favour of the claimant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Rukam Singh was working as a driver in the employment of respondent No. 2 – Kripal Singh in vehicle No. UP07C/9065 as a driver and was getting Rs. 4,500/- per month as salary and Rs. 50/- per day towards meal expenses. On 05.02.2006 at about 06:00 a.m. while going to park the vehicle when he reached near Mela Niyantran Kaks tow cows came in front of the said vehicle and in order to save them, it met with an accident, in which, driver as well as cleaner sustained serious injuries. The claimant has stated in the claim petition that he comes under the category of Workmen’s Compensation Act and he sustained disability by this accident, therefore, filed claim petition before the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner for a sum 2 of Rs. 5,27,828/- along with interest @ 12% per annum as interest. 3. The aforesaid petition was numbered as W.C.A. No. 5 of 2006 and the notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 – Kripal Singh contested the claim petition by filing written statement admitting this fact that the injured/claimant was engaged as a driver in Vehicle No. UP07C/9065 and he sustained injuries during the course of his employment. It has further alleged that the vehicle in question was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. from 17.03.2005 to 16.03.2006. In order to support his version, he has produced Insurance Policy No. 321904/31/04/06923 before the learned Commissioner. The owner of the vehicle further accepted that he was giving Rs. 4,000/- per month as salary to the claimant/injured and Rs. 50/- towards meal allowance. It has further alleged that the amount claimed by the claimant/injured was not liable to be accepted. 4. Opposite party No. 2 – the New India Assurance Company Ltd. also filed the written statement admitting this fact only that the vehicle in question was insured with the Company and denying other version made in the claim petition. It has also alleged that this court has no power to hear the matter. Therefore, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the material available on record, the learned Commissioner framed relevant issues, which were discussed in great detail. On appreciation of the material available on record as well as after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Workmen Compensation 3 Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 4,35,369/- in favour of the claimant vide judgment and order dated 24.04.2008. 6. Aggrieved against the said order the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/the New India Assurance Company. 7. Heard Sri V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri I.P. Kohli, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 8. From the perusal of the record shows that it was not disputed between the parties that the claimant/injured was employed under the employment of Kripal Singh in truck No. UP07C/9065 as a driver. The owner of the truck himself admitted this fact in his oral statement that Rukam Singh was working as a driver in the said truck and he used to give Rs. 4,500/- as salary and Rs. 50/- per day towards daily expenses. He has also stated that he has provided financial aid to the claimant/injured. In order to support his case he has filed the photocopy of registration certificate, insurance cover note etc. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before the Court that the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner without considering the disability certificate awarded the amount of compensation on his own. He has further submitted that the learned Commissioner only on the oral evidence of the doctors awarded the amount, which appears to be wrong in the eye of law. 4 10. Learned counsel for the respondent/claimant has contended the rival contention and has submitted that the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner awarded the amount of compensation on the basis of evidence available on record. He has further submitted that there is no need to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. 11. On the basis of the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the entire record available before me. The learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner has decided issue No. 1 relating to the disability of the claimant/injured. The learned Commissioner has recorded the statement of Dr. U.P. Gupta (P.W.2), who has stated that Rukam Singh came to him for treatment. His both the legs were operated and an iron rod was put in his leg. He has further stated that due to these injuries, he cannot driver vehicle in future. He has further stated that he sustained 50% disability at present and he is under treatment but he cannot drive vehicle in future. The Insurance Company was provided sufficient opportunity to make his submission, but it could not produce any evidence in support of his case. Therefore, the learned Commissioner on the basis of the material available on record held that due to injuries sustained by the claimant, he cannot work as a driver in future and on the basis of the disability certificate as well as statement of the doctor considered 50% disability of the claimant/injured, which appears to be quite justified. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant bear no force at this stage. I am in total agreement with the finding recorded by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner. 12. I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and award. The learned Workmen Compensation 5 Commissioner has considered each and every point and awarded the amount of compensation in accordance with law. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 01.12.2008 ASWAL