IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. FAO No.281 of 2005 Date of Decision : December 17, 2009 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. …Appellant Versus: Satya Devi & Others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. B. M. Chauhan, Advocate For respondent No. 1 : Mr. K. B. Khajuria, Advocate For respondents 2(a) to 2(c):Mr. Dinesh Thakur, vice Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. SANJAY KAROL, JUDGE (Oral). The present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act,1923 has been filed by the insurer, M/s New India Assurance Company Ltd., assailing the award dated 08.12.2004 passed in Case No. 08/2002 titled as Smt. Satya Devi vs. Devi Ram and Ors., whereby a sum of Rs.4,48,000/- along with interest from the date of the death stands awarded in favour of the claimant, respondent No.1 herein. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 The appeal stands admitted on the following substantial questions of Law :- 3. Whether the learned Commissioner was right in making the appellant insurance company liable for payment of interest. Whether the Commissioner has committed illegality by awarding interest @ 9 % per annum on the compensation amount from the date of death? 5. Whether the petitioner has not given any acceptable evidence for claim for death arising out of and in the courts (sic.) of employment. Whether the death of the deceased Balbir Singh has not arisen out of and in the course of his employment with the owner of the truck? 6. Whether the finding has been arrived at by the Commissioner by placing reliance on inadmissible evidence which if it was omitted, and opposite conclusion was possible? Smt Satya Devi filed a claim petition under Section 22 of the Act pleading that during the course of the employment on 4th September, 2001, her son Shri Balbir Singh, while working as a conductor on Truck No. HP-24-6125 belonging to Shri Devi Ram was beaten up and sustained injuries. He 3 succumbed to the same and died on 5th of September, 2001. He was earning salary of Rs.4000/- per month and he was 20 years of age at the time of the accident. The petition was opposed by the owner by simply stating that the claimant was not entitled to huge amount of compensation as claimed. The vehicle in question was insured with the insurer who by filing a separate reply, sought dismissal of the claim petition on the ground that no claim form had been submitted by the insurer. Based on the pleading of the parties, the Commissioner, Workmen’s framed following issues :- 1. Whether Sh. Balbir Singh deceased died due to injuries sustained by him during the course of employment of respondent No.1? 2. If so, to what amount and from whom the petitioner is entitled to get compensation? 3. Whether the present petition is not maintainable? Opportunity to lead evidence was granted to the parties. Admittedly, no oral evidence was led by the insurer. The insurer only tendered in evidence the Rajpatra. The claimant and the insured examined themselves as witnesses. 4 The Commissioner, adjudicated the petition by holding that Shri Balbir Singh was on duty at the time of the unfortunate incident when he was beaten up and with respect to which FIR Ext.PW1/C was registered with Police Station, Sadar, Bilaspur. As a result of the injuries received he died on 5th day of September, 2001 and his post mortem report Ext. PW1/B was proved to the said effect. The deceased was on duty and died in the course of his employment. The claimant being entitled to receive the compensation, a sum of Rs. 4,48,000/- was awarded along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the death of the deceased. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. This Court in Sita Ram vs. Satvinder Singh (Latest HLJ 2008 HP-1110) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Saroj Kumar & Ors., 2009 (1) Shim.L.C. 253, has held that the compensation has to be awarded within a period of 30 days from the date when the amount falls due. In the instant case, there is no dispute about the liability. It also cannot be disputed that the amount fell due after 30 days. Thus, keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by this Court, obviously, the Commissioner Workmen has erred in awarding interest from the date of the death. In the instant 5 case, there is no dispute about the entitlement of the payment of compensation to the claimant or the liability of the owner of the vehicle and the amount due and payable to the claimant. Hence, the interest could have been awarded only after one month from the date of the death. Ordered accordingly. The petitioner as also Shri Devi Ram have clearly and categorically stated that at the time of unfortunate incident on 4th of September,2001, the petitioner was performing his duties as a Conductor and the vehicle in question was on its way to Dhami from Barmana. The alleged incident, in no manner is attributed to the deceased which is also evident from the FIR Ext. PW-1/C. Hence, the claimant has been able to clearly prove by leading a cogent and consistent material that the deceased died in the course of his employment. The evidence produced by the parties cannot be said to be inadmissible. It is not the pleaded case of the insurer or the owner of the vehicle that the claimant is not the mother of the deceased. Hence, I do not find any illegality, perversity or impropriety in the impugned award. The entire material has been considered and correctly appreciated. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 6 The appeal is partly accepted and the impugned award dated 08.12.2004 passed by the Commissioner under Workmen’s Compensation Act, Sadar Sub Division, Bilaspur, H.P. in Case No. 08/2002, is modified to the aforesaid extent. (Sanjay Karol), Judge December 17, 2009 (Rita)