In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... F.A.O. No.4685 of 2010 (O&M) ..... Date of decision:23.8.2011 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited .....Appellant v. Kamlesh 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. R.K. Bashamboo, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ajit Malik, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 6. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as `the Insurance Company') has preferred this appeal against the order/award dated 28.1.2010 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as `the Commissioner’) whereby the claimants-respondents Nos.1 to 6 of deceased Ram Rattan, who was admittedly working as a Driver on tractor bearing registration No.HR-10B-8723, belonging to respondents F.A.O. No.4685 of 2010 (O&M) [2] No.8 and 9, were held entitled to the compensation to the tune of `3,79,120/- along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of accident i.e. 12.1.2004 till the payment is made. The appellant and respondents No.8 and 9 were jointly and severally held liable to make payment. As regards penalty under Section 4-A of the Act, respondents No.8 and 9 were also held liable to pay penalty of `50,000/- to the claimants-respondents No.1 to 6. The Commissioner awarded the above compensation by taking the salary of the deceased-workman as `4,000/- per month. It was further ordered by the Commissioner that since the tractor was insured with the Insurance Company (appellant), the appellant would be liable to pay the amount of compensation along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of accident i.e. 12.1.2004 till its realization. Ram Rattan (deceased), aged about 38 years, was admittedly working as a Driver on the aforesaid tractor, belonging to respondents No.8 and 9. On 12.1.2004, Ram Rattan on the directions of respondents No.8 and 9 after loading bricks in the tractor trolley from Village Kiloi went to Village Sanghi and the tractor met with an accident at Village Sanghi as a result of which he received multiple injuries. He was taken to PGIMS, Rohtak and was declared dead by the doctors. Ram Rattan had died while on duty and during the course of employment. Randhir Singh (respondent No.8) and Balbir Singh (respondent No.9), co-owners of the vehicle in question, in their written statement before the Commissioner, admitted that Ram Rattan (deceased) was their driver and was on duty at the time of his death. They also admitted that F.A.O. No.4685 of 2010 (O&M) [3] Ram Rattan was drawing a salary of `5,000/- per month and died during the course of employment while working as driver on the tractor. However, they did not appear thereafter, and were proceeded against ex parte by the Commissioner. The vehicle in question had been insured with the Insurance Company. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the co-owner Balbir Singh (respondent No.9) was owner of the vehicle and the deceased was his son-in-law. The fact regarding ownership and relation of the deceased is not likely to affect the merits of this case. Only the circumstances under which the dependents of the deceased are entitled to receive compensation is that the person should have died while in the course of employment and he should be holding a valid driving licence at the relevant time. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased was not holding a valid licence at that time. In view of the admitted position that the deceased- workman was an employee of respondent Nos.8 and 9 and died during the course of employment while giving duty at the tractor mentioned above, owned by respondents No.8 and 9, which was insured with the Insurance Company, I do not see any ground warranting interference in the impugned award so far as award of compensation to the dependents of the workman is concerned as the amount of compensation i.e. `3,79,120/- is not at all on the excessive side. 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. F.A.O. No.4685 of 2010 (O&M) [4] The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. With the above modification in the impugned award, this appeal is dismissed. August 23, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*