IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 274 OF 2005 1- Sri Durga Lal S/o Bhawan Das R/o Village Neeti (Kaudia), Patwari Circle Kaudia, Tehsil Chamoli, P.O. Mayapur, District Chamoli. 2- Smt. Rameshwari Devi W/o Sri Durga Lal R/o Village Neeti (Kaudia), Patwari Circle Kaudia, Tehsil Chamoli, P.O. Mayapur, District Chamoli …Claimants / Appellants. Vs. 1- Sri Madan Singh Rana S/o Sri Ratan Singh R/o Village Paing, P.O. Raini, Patwari Circle Tapovan, Tehsil Joshimath District Chamoli, Owner of Truck No. U.P. 07C-3450, presently R/o Village Neeti (Kaudia), Patwari Circle Kaudia Tehsil Chamoli, P.O. Mayapur, District Chamoli. 2- The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Railway Road, Near Post Office Jwalapur, Haridwar … Opp. Parties /Respondents. Sri G.S. Negi, Advocate for the appellants. Sri Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Sri D.S. Patni, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Dated: 27-03-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 20-6-2001, passed by Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Chamoli in W.C. Case No. 01 of 2000-2001, Durga Lal and another Vs. Madan Singh Rana and another, whereby the Workment’s Compensation Commissioner (hereinafter referred to ‘the Commissioner’) awarded compensation for a sum of Rs. 1,09,235/- against the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. The Commissioner alsodirected the Insurance Company to make payment of the compensation within a period of one month, failing with interest @ 12% per annum shall be payable on the amount so awarded. 2- Brief facts of the case, giving rise to this appeal, are that the claimants/appellants preferred a claim petition before the Commissioner for compensation in lieu of death of their son late Darshan Lal @ Dinesh Lal, occurred in a motor accident. The deceased Darshan Lal was employed as cleaner on Truck No. U.P. 07-C/ 3450. On 8.5.2000, the said Truck was going to Badrinath from Rishikesh along with the goods and when the Truck reached near Khankara, P.S. Rudraprayag, it met with accident and Dinesh Lal died at the spot. According to Claimants the deceased was 24 years of age and he was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month as salary from the Truck owner as well as from the profession apiculture. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation. 3- The owner of the offending Truck contested the petition before the Commissioner by filing his objection in which he alleged that the Truck was insured with Oriental Insurance Company and it had valid registration, permit etc. The driver had also valid driving license. Therefore, the liability to pay compensation, if any, is upon the insurer of the vehicle. 4- The Oriental Insurance Company also filed objection and disputed the salary of the deceased as mentioned by the claimants in the claim petition. It also alleged that the owner of the vehicle has to strictly prove the genuineness of the documents furnished by him relating to the offending Truck. 5- Parties led oral as well as documentary evidence before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. The learned Commissioner after considering the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, decreed the petition for a sum of Rs. 1,09,235/- against the Oriental Insurance Company and directed the insurance company to pay the compensation within one month, failing which interest @ 12% per annum shall be payable. 6- Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner, the claimants/appellants have preferred this appeal before this Court. 7- I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8- Learned counsel for the claimants/ appellants has argued that the learned Commissioner has erred in computing the compensation at monthly income of Rs. 1,000/-. According to him the deceased was actually getting a salary of Rs. 2,000/- per month as a Cleaner in the Truck and the Truck owner has also admitted this fact in his written statement filed before the Commissioner, therefore, the amount of compensation would be enhanced. 9- The learned counsel for the insurance company, on the other hand, has opposed the above submission and contended that the learned Commissioner has awarded a just and reasonable amount of compensation and the finding of the Commissioner are based on evidence on record, therefore, the impugned award need no interference. 10- Having considered the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellants. From perusal of the record it reveals that the owner of the offending truck in his written statement has specifically alleged that that salary of Rs. 2,000/- of the deceased, included the expenses of meal etc. The owner of the Truck also examined himself as D.W. 1 and clarified the position that he was paying Rs. 1,000/- per month to the deceased as salary and he also used to provide him two times meal and in this way the total expenses on the deceased was about Rs. 2,000/- per month. This witness in his cross-examination, by claimants, has specifically denied that he used to give Rs.2,000/- per month to the deceased as salary and Rs. 1,000/- towards expenses of his meal. Therefore, the learned Commissioner was quite justified in computing the compensation on the monthly income of Rs. 1,000/-. 11- No other point has been raised before me. 12- In view of above discussion, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13- Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, is hereby confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB