IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH === C.M. No. 4797/C.II of 2008 & F.A.O. No. 752 of 2008 Date of Decision: 11.3.2008 United India Insurance Company Limited through its Deputy Manager --- Appellant Versus Ram Bhaj and others --- Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- PRESENT: Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.9.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation Act, (for short “the Act”) whereby an award of Rs. 3,36,000/- has been passed in favour of the respondents, i.e. the parents of a youth of 20 years, who was snatched away by the destiny in a mishap that occurred on 14.10.2004. F.A.O. No. 752 of 2008 The facts of the case are that one Manoj son of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was employed with respondent No.3 as cleaner. Respondent No. 3 used to ply his vehicle in Gujarat State. On 14.10.2004, Manoj was performing his duties on the truck of respondent No.3 as cleaner. Due to bad weather and smelling, that the goods loaded in the truck might not be damaged, Manoj was asked to lay a Tirpal thereon. In the process, Manoj came into contact with a high-tension electric wire and sustained burn injuries on his body. He became unconscious and ultimately died due to the injuries. The parents of the deceased filed a claim petition on the ground that the monthly wages of the deceased were Rs. 4500/- and besides this he was being paid a sum of Rs. 100/- per night as diet money and Rs. 100/- per night as night charges because the vehicle on which he was on duty used to ply on very long routes. It was further pleaded in clear terms that Manoj lost his life in the course of his employment as Cleaner on the truck of respondent No.3. It was stated that the claimants made a request for payment of compensation to the owner of the truck i.e. respondent No.3 and the appellant, but nothing was paid by them. The claimants thus prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,00,000/- along with interest 12% per annum from the date of petition till actual realization. The petition was contested, both by the appellant and the owner of the truck. The appellant stated that the applicants never requested it for paying compensation nor was the instant claim petition maintainable as the workman did not sustain injuries during the course of employment and the application made for grant of compensation was absolutely frivolous and untenable. The owner of the truck, however, adopted a totally different track and stated that the deceased was never 2 F.A.O. No. 752 of 2008 employed with them as a Cleaner on the vehicle and thus, he did not come within the definition of the workman. The Commissioner on appreciation of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the pleas raised on behalf of the claimants were correct. It was observed that Manoj sustained injuries while he was laying Tirpal on the truck on which he was employed. It was admitted by respondent No.3 (respondent No.1 in the claim petition) that he owned a truck bearing registration No. HR-46-B-0129 and more over, the version of the claimants of Manoj having sustained burn injuries after having come into contact with high-tension wire stood substantiated on the record in the absence of any rebuttal to the above. Consequently, it stood established on the record that from the above facts, it could easily be inferred that there existed relationship between deceased Manoj and the owner of the truck. The fact of Manoj having sustained injuries stood further fortified from the medical evidence produced on the record by the claimants. Though the applicants had not been able to prove that the deceased’s salary was Rs. 4500/- per month as claimed by them in the petition, but the court below having regard to the minimum wages as notified in the relevant behalf by the Government and further having regard to the fact that the deceased used to be away and thus, he must be getting a little more than the wages of a Cleaner which as per the instructions of the Government on the subject were Rs. 2269.45 per month, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month at the time of his death. Taking the age of the deceased to be 20 years, and further taking the admissible wages under the Act, the Commissioner awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,36,000/- in favour of the claimants, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein vide award dated 25.9.2007. It was observed that the penalty and interest were not being awarded as 3 F.A.O. No. 752 of 2008 the claimants had not served legal notices on the owner and the appellant. As for the question as to who was liable to pay compensation, it was ordered that since the vehicle was insured with the appellant and the vehicle was being used by the insured for his purposes, the appellant would be liable to pay the compensation. It was further directed that the amount of compensation shall be deposited within 30 days of the passing of the award, otherwise the appellant would be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of the award till realization. Learned counsel for the appellant has been heard and the record has been perused. It was argued by the learned counsel that there was no evidence on the record to show that there existed any relationship between the deceased and the owner of the vehicle. The argument has no force and deserves to be rejected. There is no dispute with regard to a question of law that the owner of the vehicle was liable to pay compensation only if it was shown to the court that the deceased lost his life in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and the insurer could be held liable to indemnify the insured if the vehicle was proved to have been used in accordance with the terms of the insurance policy. It has been a positive case of the claimants, who are parents of deceased Manoj, that their son, i.e. the deceased, was employed as Cleaner on the vehicle owned by respondent No.3 and during the course of his employment as such, he became victim of the mishap and lost his life. The claimants had pleaded specifically that when the vehicle was away to an area in Gujarat, the weather-conditions were not congenial and hence, on the direction of the driver of the vehicle, the son of the claimants was asked to lay Tirpal on the goods loaded in the truck and in that process he came into contact 4 F.A.O. No. 752 of 2008 with a high-tension wire and sustained burn injuries and ultimately died. Neither the appellant nor the owner of the truck was able to rebut the above facts. Rather it stood amply proved by means of other oral as well as documentary evidence that Manoj was taken to hospital for treatment of burn injuries and ultimately died due to those injuries. Nor could the counsel appearing for the appellant before this Court show by reference to any material available on the record that the findings recorded in that behalf were vitiated on any valid score. The contention is thus, held to be merit less and is rejected. The result of the above is that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Since the appeal itself has been heard on merits and also has been dismissed, the question of condonation of delay of 76 days in filing the appeal is left open and no order is passed thereon. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) March 11, 2008 JUDGE *RKMALIK* 5