FAO No.487 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO No.487 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 22.12.2010 **** Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. . . . . Appellant Vs. Rajinder Kaur and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.R.K. Shukla, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.G.P. Vashist, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) Cost of `500/- has been paid and receipt is placed on record. Learned counsel for the appellant also placed on record substantial question of law raised in the present appeal. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.8.2008 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act’) whereby a sum of `4,48,000/- has been awarded along with interest @ 6% in case the amount of compensation is not paid within 60 days of the award. In terms of the first proviso to Section 30 of the Act, the appeal is maintainable only on a substantial question of law. Learned counsel for the appellant has framed two substantial questions of law which have been placed on record today in which, first question of law is with regard to the liability of insurance company to indemnify the FAO No.487 of 2009 (O&M) -2- deceased, who was a cleaner. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that as per the insurance policy, premium on legal liability was charged by the insurance company in respect of employee/driver and not for the cleaner. Hence, the Commissioner has committed an error of law in allowing compensation on account of the death of the cleaner, who is stated to have been working on the Harvester Combine. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the word “employee” would include any employee of the insured including the cleaner. After hearing learned counsel for the parties on this account, I have found that arguments raised by learned counsel for the respondents has substance as employee includes cleaner as well. Hence, first argument raised by leaned counsel for the appellant that compensation cannot be awarded on account of death of helper/cleaner cannot be subscribed and is thus rejected. The second question raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the income of the appellant has been assessed as `4000/- without any documentary evidence. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that question of determination of the wages is not a substantial question of law rather it is a question of fact which cannot be agitated in the garb of substantial question of law as provided under the first proviso to Section 30 of the Act. He has relied upon a decision of the High Court of Orrisa at Cuttack in the case of “Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Saroj Kumar Swain and others” 2006 ACJ 2126 . After hearing learned counsel for the parties in this regard, I am of the view that question of determination of wages is a pure question of fact, therefore, it cannot be agitated in the garb of substantial question of law. No other point has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that learned Court below has erred in not awarding interest on the amount of compensation. He, however, also submits that he has not filed any appeal. I am afraid that this plea cannot be allowed to be raised in the FAO No.487 of 2009 (O&M) -3- present appeal. The respondents, if so advised, may file their own appeal in this regard. No other point has been raised. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 22.12.2010 JUDGE Vivek