IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 209 of 2007 National Insurance Company Ltd. … Appellant Vs Smt. Laxmi Devi & others … Respondents Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the appellant Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 04.04.2007 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Tehri Garhwal in W.C.A. No. 06 of 2006, Smt. Laxmi Devi & another Vs Buddhi Ram Semwal & another. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Deepak Bangwal was working as a conductor in Tata Dipper No. UP08/5715. On 17.12.2005, Deepak Bangwal, son of Smt. Laxmi and brother of Km. Sangeeta met with an accident, when he was going from Uttarkashi to Rishikesh in Tata Dipper No. UP08/5715. The accident took place during the course of his employment. Sri Buddhi Ram was the owner of the vehicle in question. The deceased was the only bread earner of the family. Hence, they have filed the claim petition before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner for a sum of Rs. 3,96,165/- as compensation. 3. Thereafter notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 – Buddhi Ram, owner of the vehicle in question has pleaded in his written statement that the deceased was working as a conductor in vehicle 2 No. UP08/5715. He has further stated that on the date of accident, he was going from Uttarkashi to Rishikesh and suddenly, the door of the vehicle opened and the deceased fell down from the vehicle. It has further pleaded that he used to pay Rs. 3,500/- to Deepak Bangwal (deceased) and the vehicle in question was insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. Therefore, the liability of compensation lies upon the insurer of the vehicle. 4. Opposite party No. 2 – National Insurance Company Ltd. also filed the written statement before the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner denying most of the allegations made in the petition. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner has framed relevant issues, which were discussed in great detail. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner decreed the claim for a sum of Rs. 3,96,165/- against the appellant and in favour of the claimants vide judgment and order dated 04.04.2007. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court. 7. Heard Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 3 8. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that the deceased was employed as a conductor in vehicle No. Up08/5715 and there is no dispute on this point and the factum of accident is also not disputed. Learned counsel for both the parties did not raise this point on their arguments. Further, the learned Commissioner discussed these points while deciding issue Nos. 1 and 2. It is also not disputed that the documents pertaining to the vehicle in question are valid on the date of accident. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has pressed this appeal only on one point. He has submitted before the Court that the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner has committed illegality by not considering the mark-sheet of Class –V of the deceased. He has further submitted that the mark-sheet clearly shows that the deceased was 15 years of age on the date of accident and as such, he cannot be said to be workmen in any manner. Thus, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner is liable to be set aside. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at great length only on the one point. I have gone through the record. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner while deciding the issue relating to the age of the deceased has considered the family register. From the perusal of this document, it is clear that on the date of accident, the deceased was 18 years of age. I do not find any force in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. As far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner on the basis of the statement of 4 P.W.1 as well as employer considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,500/-. The learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner on the basis of the material available on record rightly taken into account the monthly wages of Rs. 3,500/- and considering the schedule indicated in the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 awarded the amount of compensation. The learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner calculated the amount of compensation considering the factor given in schedule IV appended with Section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and awarded a sum of Rs. 3,96,165/- (50 X 226.38 X 3500/100). I also do not find any calculation error in the impugned judgment and award. The amount awarded by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner is just and proper. 11. No other point has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant. 12. I am in total agreement with the finding recorded by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner in this regard. The amount awarded by the learned Commissioner is just and proper. I do not find any force in the present appeal. 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.) 12.12.2008 ASWAL