IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 8 of 2001 Smt. Zeenat Ara & others … Appellants Versus Shri Vinay Verma & others … Respondents Sri R.S. Bajwa, Advocate, for appellants None appeared for the respondents Dated: April 16, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 14.6.2000 passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Garhwal Region, Dehradun, in W.C. Case No. 6 of 1996, Smt. Zeenat Ara & others vs. Shri Vinay Verma & others. Briefly stated the facts, according to the claimants, are that deceased-Sri Nawajis son of Sri Sujad Ali was employed over Truck No. 8625 of opposite party no. 1-Vinay Verma, as a cleaner and he died in an accident under the employment of opposite party on 24.7.1996 at 10.30 p.m. The accident occurred near Rajpur Road, Dilaram Bazar due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Vehicle No. U.M.S.-8625. The salary of the deceased- Nawajis was Rs.3000/- per month and was employed as Cleaner in the employment of opposite party no. 1. At the time of accident the deceased was 20 years of age and his date of birth is 8.12.1976. Opposite party no. 2-Sri Harish Jain was the registered owner of Vehicle No. U.M.S.-8625. 2 The claimants thus claimed for a sum of Rs.2,24,000/- as compensation, along with interest and penalty, against opposite parties. Opposite parties no. 1 and 2 filed their joint written statement admitting therein that deceased was the cleaner/loader over Truck No. U.M.S.-8526 at the time of accident. The accident did not take place due to rash and negligence of driver rather it occurred on account of negligence on the part of deceased himself. They have pleaded that deceased was employed over vehicle in question of answering respondents for salary of Rs.900/- per month. They have further pleaded that on 24.7.1996 they went outside and when on 25.7.1996 they came back then they were given information by police with regard to accident of vehicle and death of Nawajis in Hospital. They have also admitted that claimant no. 1 is the mother of deceased. They have further pleaded that opposite parties no. 1 and 2 are not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. They have also pleaded that since at the time of accident the vehicle was insured with New India Assurance Company, which cover note number is 321701/558771 and was valid at the time of accident, therefore, opposite party no. 3-insurance company is liable to pay compensation. Opposite party no. 3-New India Assurance Company Limited filed written statement refuting the contents of the claim petition. It has pleaded that Truck No. U.M.S.-8625 was insured with opposite party no. 3-New India Assurance Co. Ltd. but the insurance policy was effective with effect from 25th July, 1996 to 24th July, 1997, while the 3 accident took place on 24th July, 1996 prior to the date of insurance and therefore the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation as the said vehicle was not insured with it on the date of accident. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner after having considered the entire evidence adduced by the parties and perusing the material available on the record decreed the claim petition in favour of claimants and awarded the compensation for a sum of Rs. 1,60,244/- against the opposite party no.3- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner also directed that this amount of compensation is to be paid by opposite party no.3-insurance company within a period of one month, failing which, it shall have to pay an interest @ 12% per annum from the date of judgment. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the claimants/appellants have preferred the appeal, under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, before this Court for enhancement of compensation. Heard Sri R.S. Bajwa, learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. None appeared for respondents. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner has committed error in calculating the compensation on the basis of minimum wages i.e.Rs.1423/- per month as well as in not awarding 4 compensation interest on the amount of compensation from the date of accident till the date of deposit of amount, therefore, the amount of compensation awarded in favour of claimants- appellants should be enhanced. In support of his contention learned counsel for the appellants has invited my attention towards the following decisions: 1. 1976 (1) SCC 289 : 1976 AIR (SC) 222 2. Ved Prakash Garg & others vs. Premi Devi & others, reported in 1998(1) T.A.C. 215 (S.C.) 3. Kerala State Electricity Board & another vs. Vasala K. and another, reported in 2000(1) T.A.C. 6 (SC) 4. Marimuthuammal alias Marimuthu and another vs. R.P.P. Constructions (P.) Ltd., Chennai and others, reported in 2008 (1) T.A.C. 165 (Mad.) 5. National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rekha, reported in 2008 (1) T.A.C. 184 (Ker.) I have gone through the impugned judgment and award thoroughly. The witnesses produced from the side of opposite parties no. 1 and 2 have deposed in their statement that salary of deceased was Rs.900/- per month at the time of accident. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner has held that under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 by U.P. State Notification No. 3595/36-3- 4(M.W.)/98 dated 28.11.91, in April, 1996, prevalent at the relevant time, the minimum wages for cleaner in Motor Transport Undertaking was fixed at Rs.750/- per month and dearness 5 allowance was Rs.673/- per month. Therefore, the Workmen Compensation Commissioner assessed the salary of deceased at Rs.750/- + Rs.673/- =Rs.1423 per month, which appears to be just and reasonable, as the deceased was employed as cleaner under the employment of opposite parties no. 1 and 2 at the time of accident. I do not find any reason to disturb the finding recorded by Workmen Compensation Commissioner in this regard. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that the interest should have been awarded from the date of accident instead of from the date of award. This submission raised by learned counsel for appellants has no force. The learned Commissioner has directed to deposit the amount of compensation within one month of the award, failing which, interest @ 12% per annum shall be payable from the date of award. The award of interest is the discretion of the Commissioner and I do not find any infirmity and ground to award the interest from the date of accident. In view of the aforesaid evidence available on record, I come to the conclusion that the decisions cited by learned counsel for the appellants, in support of his contention, does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The appellants are not in a position to seek any help from the decisions cited above. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and award passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner. There does not appear any ground to set aside the impugned judgment and award passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner. 6 No other points have been pressed. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner, is hereby confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP