In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ....... F.A.O. No.869 of 2009 ...... Date of decision:27.7.2011 M/s Durga Rice and General Mills and another .....Appellants v. Smt. Kamlesh Rani and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. D.D. Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 6. ...... Mohinder Pal, J. Appellants-M/s Durga Rice and General Mills and Shri Suresh Kumar Kansal, partner of M/s Durga Rice Mills in this appeal have prayed for setting aside the order/award dated 24.10.2008 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as `the Commissioner') in a claim application filed for compensation under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Subhash Chand (deceased-workman), son of Yudhishter Raj was engaged as a labourer by the appellants on a monthly salary of `2,700/-. F.A.O. No.869 of 2009 [2] On 29.1.2005, Subhash Chand was spraying Methalene pesticides in the godown of the appellants under their directions. He inhaled the poisonous pesticides, as a result of which he became unconscious. He was taken to Aman Hospital, Ismailabad and thereafter referred to Sant Hospital, Ambala. He was, thereafter, referred to PGI, Chandigarh. It is during his treatment in the PGI, Chandigarh that Subhash Chand died on 3.2.2005. It has been alleged by the respondents, who are dependents of Subhash Chand that he inhaled the poisonous pesticides in the course of his employment with the appellants. There was casual and proximate connection between the death and employment of the deceased with the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that there was no relationship of master and servant in this case. Learned counsel has submitted that there is no evidence to show that Subhash Chand was ever employed in the firm of the appellants and no such accident had ever taken place. According to him, the respondents except for the bald statement have not produced any evidence to show that there was a relationship of master and servant between the deceased and the appellants. It has further been submitted that there was no evidence to corroborate the fact that the deceased had died while in the course of his employment with the appellants. It has further been submitted that the story regarding the death of the deceased Subhash Chand is false as no material evidence has been placed on record to corroborate the same. The arguments of the learned counsel in this behalf are devoid of any force. Though, the post-mortem report has not been placed on the file of the appellate Court, however, the documents available with the counsel for the respondents, there is no doubt that the deceased Subhash F.A.O. No.869 of 2009 [3] Chand had died while in the course of his employment. As per post-mortem report, in the column of cause of death, it has been mentioned that as per information supplied at the time of hospitalization, there is no doubt that Subhash Chand died while spraying Methalene pesticides on the bags kept in the premises of the appellants. Otherwise, also DDR (Ex.AW-3) has been placed on record. This also mentions regarding the incident having taken place while spraying Methalene pesticides on the bags in the premises of the appellants. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, I do not find any ground which may warrant interference in the impugned award. In this case, the appellants are admittedly the employer. At the time of the incident, the deceased- workman was spraying Methalene pesticides on the bags kept in the premises of the appellants. There is no straitjacket formula by which the amount of compensation can be estimated. However, the same can be gauged keeping in view the status of the parties especially the claimants, the manner in which the accident had taken place, life span of the deceased, expenses incurred on the last rites, agony of the claimants etc. The Commissioner, after appreciating the entire evidence, awarded compensation of `3,16,036/- along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. The amount of compensation awarded by the Commissioner, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, appears to be quite reasonable. In view of the above, I do not find any ground warranting interference in the impugned award passed by the Commissioner. This F.A.O. No.869 of 2009 [4] appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. July 27, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*