IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 111 of 2008 1. Union of India, through Secretary Surface Transport, New Delhi 2. Director General Boarder Road Organisation New Delhi 3. Commanding Officer 65, Road Construction Company (GREF) C/O 55 A.P.O. ... Appellants Vs 1. Smt. Baishakhi Devi W/o Late Kharak Singh 2. Kishan Singh S/o Late Kharak Singh 3. Devendra Singh S/o Late Kharak Singh 4. Kumari Manaki D/o Late Kharak Singh Serial No. 3 to 4 through their natural guardian Mother Smt. Baishakhi Devi W/o Late Kharak Singh All R/o Village Takul Patti Syangkhola Tehsil Dharchula District Pithoragarh 5. Har Singh Dhami S/o Lal Singh R/o & P.O. Ranthi, Dharchula District Pithoragarh (owner of Vehicle No. Jeep UP03/4792) 6. Oriental Assurance Company Ltd. through Branch Manager A-25/27 Asafali Road New Delhi ... Respondents Sri Vikas Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 30 of the Workman Compensation Act, 1923 against the judgment and order dated 25.02.2005 passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner/District Magistrate, Pithoragarh in Workmen Compensation Case No. 41 of 2002, Smt. Baishakhi Devi & others Vs Union of India & others and order dated 04.02.2008 passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner/District Magistrate, Pithoragarh in Review 2 Petition No. 12 of 2006, Commanding Officer 65 Construction Company (GREF) Vs Smt. Baishakhi Devi & others. 2. Perusal of the impugned and order dated 25.02.2005 shows that the Workmen Compensation Commissioner/District Magistrate, Pithoragarh after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record imposed the liability of compensation upon Commanding Officer 65 Construction Company (GREF) and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,93,379/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the payment. Thereafter, the appellant preferred the review petition against the aforesaid judgment and order before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner/District Magistrate, Pithoragarh, which was dismissed vide order dated 04.02.2008 on the ground of delay in filing the review petition. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the appellants preferred this appeal before this Court. 4. Heard Sri Vikas Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the liability to pay compensation rests upon the Insurance Company whereas the Tribunal awarded the same against the appellants. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner / District Magistrate, Pithoragarh has committed error while imposing the liability upon appellants. 6. Perusal of the impugned order shows that at the time of the accident, the deceased – Kharak Singh was working under the employment of Boarder Road Organisation, 3 therefore, the liability of compensation has rightly been imposed upon the appellants. 7. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the impugned orders passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner / District Magistrate, Pithoragarh, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders. The court below considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 2100/- and on the basis of the material available on record awarded a sum of Rs. 1,93,379/- as compensation. I do not find any ground to interfere in the aforesaid order. The amount awarded by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner/District Magistrate, Pithoragarh is perfectly justified. So far as the order dated 04.02.2008 passed by the court below in review petition is concerned, I also do not find any ground to interfere in the same. The said review petition was dismissed on the ground of delay and the appellant could not explain the delay of one year and nine months in filing the review petition before the court below, therefore, the review petition was also rightly dismissed. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in-limine. 9. Consequently, stay application No. 1598 of 2008 also stands dismissed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 31.03.2008 ASWAL