FAO No.697 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.697 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.7.2010 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ..Appellant. Vs. Smt.Sunil Kumari and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.R.K.Bashamboo, Advocate for the appellant. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This appeal is directed against the order of Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Circle IV, Gurgaon dated 17.11.2009 by which a claim petition filed under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short `the Act') has been allowed. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent Karambir had employed Raj Kumar and Tota Ram as driver and conductor respectively on his truck bearing No.HR 26-D/9030. On 15.10.2003, while they were performing their duties on the vehicle in question, some persons attacked upon them and in that accident, both of them had died. The dependents of both driver and conductor filed Case No.21/2003 titled as Maya and others Vs. Karambir and another and Case No.22 of 2003 titled as Sunil Kumari and others Vs. Karambir and another. Case No.21 of 2003 is in respect of FAO No.697 of 2010 (O&M) -2- death of Raj Kumar (driver) whereas Case No.22 of 2003 is in respect of death of Tota Ram (Conductor). The learned Commissioner had found that accident had taken place during the course of employment. Tota Ram deceased was 35 years of age at the time of accident and was drawing salary of Rs.4000/-, therefore, learned Commissioner assessed the compensation in his case to the tune of Rs.3,94,120/- along with interest @ 12%. Similarly, Case No.22 of 2003 pertaining to the driver was also allowed on the same day by a common order assessing compensation to the tune of Rs.2,94,294/-. The Insurance Company has filed two appeals. FAO No.696 of 2010 has been filed challenging the award in favour of the driver whereas FAO No.697 of 2010 has been filed challenging the award in favour of the Conductor. In FAO No.696 of 2010 pertaining to the driver, counsel for the appellant has argued that admittedly driver was not holding valid driving licence, therefore, for his own negligence he should not be allowed compensation by the Commissioner. This Court by an order of even date, has issued notice of motion for 6.10.2010 along with notice regarding stay. However, in the present case, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accident had not taken place during the course of employment as they were allegedly attacked upon by mob in which they have died. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record with his assistance. In my view, once it is an admitted fact that the conductor was on the truck on the fateful day, he is deemed to be in employment of FAO No.697 of 2010 (O&M) -3- respondent No.1 and his death has occurred during the course of his employment. No other argument has been raised. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 13.7.2010 Judge Meenu