F.A.O. No.5936 OF 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... F.A.O. No.5936 OF 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 02, 2011 Omi Devi and others ... Appellants VERSUS Bijender and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present: Mr.Parveen Kumar Rohilla, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Balwinder Singh Brar, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.3. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. C.M.No.26370-CII of 2010 For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Delay of 117 days in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO No.5936 of 2010 The appellants have filed this appeal against the order and award dated 29.01.2010 passed by the learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Circle-II, Panipat (hereinafter F.A.O. No.5936 OF 2010 (O&M) 2 referred to as 'the Commissioner') vide which they were awarded ` 4,35,070/- as compensation. The appellants in this appeal have prayed for enhancement of compensation from ` 4,35,070/- to ` 6,00,000/- along with interest. The case of the appellants in nut-shell is that Surjeet Singh died in motor vehicle accident on 18.02.2006 in the area of Police Station Sadar, Panipat under the employment of respondent No.2. He was working as driver on Eicher Canter No.HR-45-6925. FIR No.34 dated 18.02.2006 under Sections 283/304-A of the Indian Penal Code by the Police of Police Station Sadar, Panipat was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. Post-mortem examination on the dead body was conducted in Civil Hospital, Panipat. Respondent No.1 was proceeded ex parte before the learned Commissioner while respondent No.2 had contested the petition and denied the allegations of the appellants as contained in his application before the Commissioner. On the pleading of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1.Whether there exist relationship of master and servant between the respondent and the deceased? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to the amount claim for? 3. Relief.” Under Issue No.1, it was held that there existed relationship of master and servant between the deceased and respondent No.2. Under Issue No.2, it was held that appellants were entitled for compensation ` 2,96,280/-, interest ` 1,36,290/- on compensation and ` 25,000/- as funeral expenses, total amounting to ` 4,35,070/-. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that findings of F.A.O. No.5936 OF 2010 (O&M) 3 the learned Commissioner were not based on proper appreciation of facts and evidence available on the file. The compensation awarded is on lesser side. It was fully proved that income of the deceased was ` 4100/- per month. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the judgment passed by the learned Commissioner and find no fault in it. The learned Commissioner has assessed the age of the deceased as 35 years. The deceased was driver of the Canter, which comes under the category of skilled workman. The wages of the driver as on 18.02.2006 were ` 3007/-. The learned Commissioner has calculated the amount as per Schedule-IV of section under Workmen's Compensation Act and rightly awarded the amount of ` 4,35,070/- and no interference in the award is called for. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed. September 02, 2011 ( MOHINDER PAL ) jt JUDGE