In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ..... F.A.O. No.4803 of 2011 (O & M) .... Date of decision: 29.7.2011 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant v. Smt. Jivo Bai alias Jiwan Bai and others ........Respondents ..... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate for the appellant. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as `the Insurance Company') has preferred this appeal against the order/award dated 6.5.2011 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as `the Commissioner') whereby the dependents of Jeet Singh were granted compensation to the extent of `2,09,627/- and interest at the rate of 12% from 23.7.1999 to 3.5.2011 i.e. from the date of accident to the extent of `2,71,117/-, total amounting to `4,80,744/-. However, since the truck of Sat Parkash (respondent No.3) was insured with the Insurance Company, F.A.O. No.4803 of 2011 (O & M) [2] therefore, the Insurance Company (appellant) was ordered to indemnify to respondent No.3 and the Insurance Company was held liable to pay the said amount. The workman-Jeet Singh, aged about 18 years, was working with respondent No.3 as cleaner on truck bearing registration No.HR-05GA-0159 and was earning about Rs.2,000/- per month as salary besides pocket expenses. On 22.7.1999, respondent No.3 directed Jeet Singh-workman (deceased) and his another colleague Rajinder Singh, who were coming from Himachal Cold Store to Kurukshetra after loading the Polish in the truck bearing registration No.HR-05GA-0159, to park the said truck at Old Truck Union Meerut Road, Karnal and shift the goods in another truck bearing registration No.HR-05A-8425 belonging to respondent No.3. On 23.7.1999 at about 5.30 a.m., respondent No.3 along with another truck driver came at Old Truck Union, Karnal, where both the trucks were parked and found that Jeet Singh and his colleague Rajinder Singh were dead. In the claim petition, it has been alleged that both had been murdered and FIR No.608 dated 23.7.1999 under Section 302 IPC was got registered at Police Station Karnal. While in the employment of respondent No.3, Jeet Singh-workman had been murdered. The claimants, alleging that Jeet Singh-workman had died during the course of his employment with respondent No.3 herein claimed compensation. Respondent No.3 admitted the employment of the workman- Jeet Singh as a Cleaner on his truck, murder of the workman during the course of employment, monthly wage and age of the deceased. He has also submitted that since his truck was insured with the Insurance Company, F.A.O. No.4803 of 2011 (O & M) [3] therefore, the Insurance Company was liable to make the payment of compensation. The Commissioner rightly accepted this contention raised on behalf of the owner-respondent No.3. The truck of respondent No.3 was insured with the Insurance Company. Under the circumstances, the Commissioner was right in holding that the Insurance Company, being the insurer of the truck, was liable to pay compensation to the claimants-respondents. Jeet Singh (workman) at the time of his death was aged about 18 years. The Commissioner, for quantifying the amount of compensation, took the wages of the deceased at `1852/- per month as per the minimum rates of wages of a Cleaner at the relevant time. The death in this case had taken place on the intervening night of 22/23.7.1999. Under the circumstances, the Commissioner awarded compensation to the tune of `2,09,627/- by way of compensation calculated in terms of Section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and interest at the rate of 12% from 23.7.1999 to 3.5.2011 amounting to `2,71,117/-, total amounting to `4,80,744/- to the claimants/respondents vide award/order dated 6.5.2011. I do not see any ground warranting interference in the impugned award so far as award of compensation to the claimants- respondents is concerned. However, the claimants will be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum instead of 12 per cent per annum as awarded by the Commissioner from the date of passing of award i.e. 6.5.2011 and further interest at the same rate from 6.6.2011 i.e. after one month of the passing of award which was given on 6.5.2011 on the amount of compensation in case the amount of compensation i.e. F.A.O. No.4803 of 2011 (O & M) [4] `2,09,627/- along with interest has not been deposited within one month of the passing of the award. The impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above. With the above modification in the impugned award, this appeal is hereby dismissed. July 29, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*