IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 165 of 2002 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. .. Appellant. Vs. Smt. Munni Devi & 6 others .. Respondents. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocates for respondents 1 to 6. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.7. Dated: 09-04-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal U/S 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 31.5.2002, passed by Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation Act, and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Udham Singh Nagar in W.C.A. No. 2 of 2000. 2- Brief facts of the case are that the claimant Smt. Munni Devi has filed claim petition before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner and Assistant Labour Commissioner U.S. Nagar in lieu of death of her husband Shakun Kumar. According to her, her husband was employed as a labourer with the respondent, M/S Rana Vision Limited, Kichha. On 7.12.1998 petitioner’s husband has died due to the injuries sustained by him in the road accident. According 2 to the claimant her husband at the time of accident was 35 years of age and he was getting salary @ 1,670/- per month. 3- The opposite party No.1, Firm filed objection alleging therein that the deceased Shakun Kumar Sharma was employed in the Firm as a trainee and he was getting Rs. 1,670/- per month as salary. It has also been alleged that the deceased was insured with New India Assurance Company under employee insurance policy. 4- The Opposite Party No.2/Insurance Company also filed objection and alleged that the deceased at the time of accident was not on duty, therefore, the claimants are not entitled to get any compensation. It was also alleged that the claimants have claimed a highly excessive amount without any proper calculation. 5- The learned Commissioner after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence adduced by the parties, awarded a sum of Rs. 85,721/- as compensation along with interest @ 12%, i.e. Rs. 33,431/-, total amount of Rs. 1,19,152/-, payable by O.P.No.2, New India Assurance Company. 6- Feeling aggrieved the New India Assurance Company has filed this appeal before this Court. 3 7- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8- The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the learned Commissioner has committed error by assessing the compensation on the basis of monthly salary of Rs. 1,670/- whereas it should have been calculated at a monthly salary of Rs. 1,000/- per month on the basis of the insurance policy therefore, the compensation be reduced. 9- Perusal of record reveals that the Firm in its objection has specifically mentioned that the employees insurance policy number was 4242100388288 which was valid with effect from 1.4.98 to 31.3.99. The insurance company has admitted before the learned Commissioner that the deceased was insured under the above insurance policy. 10- So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the 300 employees were insured for Rs.66,00,000/- and the salary of single workman can not be taken more than Rs. 1,000/- per month, is concerned, the same is not tenable. The reason is that in the aforesaid 300 employees insured with Insurance Company may be of different category getting different salary. The record reveals that the Insurance Company has deposited the compensation 4 of Rs. 78,824/- in the trial Court. When the learned Commissioner has found that the compensation deposited by the Insurance Company was not sufficient and in accordance with the provision of Section 4-A of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, then notices were issued to the opposite parties. The O.P.- M/s Ram Vision Limited filed objection alleging therein that the deceased was a trainee getting salary of Rs. 1,670/- per month. The Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence controverting the salary of the deceased as alleged by the employer. Therefore, the learned Commissioner has rightly calculated the compensation on the basis of the salary of Rs. 1,670/- per month. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and order. 11- The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12- Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 31-5-2002 is confirmed. 13- The amount of compensation, if any, deposited before this court at the time of admission of the appeal, the same be remitted to the trial court concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) Aswal