IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 163 of 2006 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. … Appellant Vs Smt. Shanti Devi & others … Respondents Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant Sri B.D. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 Sri Manoj Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 25.01.2006 passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner in W.C. Case No. 30 of 2003 whereby the learned Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 4,08,913/- in favour of the claimants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Sri Tej Singh was appointed as driver in truck No. UA04/7207 under the employment of Rajesh Pant. On 14.04.2003, he was going to Kanpur and when he reached at Fazalganj, Kanpur, he felt pain in his chest. The cleaner called the doctor but the doctor declared him died due to heart attack. At the time of the death, he was 45 years of age and used to earn Rs. 5,000/- per month. Therefore, the wife of the deceased filed the petition before the learned Commissioner for awarding a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- as compensation in lieu of the death of her husband. 3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. contested the petition by filing its written statement denying the 2 allegations made in the petition. Sri Rajesh Pant – owner of the truck in question also contested the claim petition by filing written statement admitting that the deceased was employer in his truck. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available before the court below, the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 4,08,913/- (including interest 8% per annum) in favour of the claimants vide judgment and award dated 25.01.2006. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant/The New India Assurance Company Ltd. preferred this appeal before this Court. 6. Heard Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri B.D. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4, Sri Manoj Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the vehicle in question was insured by the appellant for the accidental death or injury. Since, the deceased died due to non accidental death, the legal heirs were not entitled to get any compensation. In order to support his contention, he has placed before me a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Jyothi Ademma Vs Plant engineer, Nellore & another reported in 2006 (3) T.A.C. 8 (S.C.). 3 8. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant as well as going through the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court, I do not find any force in the submission raised by learned counsel for the appellant. The decision of Hon’ble Apex Court is entirely different from the present case in hand. So far as the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, it is to be noted that the truck in question was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd., therefore, the driver and the cleaner comes in the category of Workmen. It is clear from the impugned judgment and award as well as paper No. 15 + 1, which is cover note of the Insurance Policy of the truck in question. The deceased died during the period of his employment, therefore, the court below has rightly awarded the amount of compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the learned Commissioner has committed illegality in admitting the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs. 4,000/- whereas there is no cogent and reasonable proof of income of the deceased. 10. Perusal of the record shows that according to the claimant, the deceased was getting Rs. 5,000/- per month. In order to support her case, she has produced the income certificate given by the Rajesh Pant, which is paper No. 13/1. Further the learned Commissioner on the basis of the statement of Sri Rajesh Pant who has stated that the deceased was getting Rs. 4,000/- as salary and Rs. 1,000/- towards food expenses. The learned Commissioner after taken into account the monthly income of the deceased as 4 Rs. 4,000/- awarded a sum of Rs. 3,38,880/- and the court below further awarded interest thereon @ 8% per annum, then the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,913/-, which is perfectly justified. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and award passed by the court below. The finding recorded by the learned Commissioner does not require any interference. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 13. The amount, if any, deposited before this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 23.05.2008 ASWAL