IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 461 of 2006 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. ..Appellant. Versus Karam Singh and another .. Respondents. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. P.S. Rawat, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Neeraj Upreti, Advocate for respondent No.2. Dated: 07-05-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 18-5-2006, passed by Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner/Deputy Labour Commissioner, Haldwani, in W.C.A. No. 42/2005. 2- The facts of the case, in short, emerged out from the petition, are that Karam Singh moved a petition before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner for compensation in lieu of death of this son Kushal Singh, who was employed as helper/cleaner on Tanker No. U.P. 02-C-4515. On 27-5-2005 the said tanker was going Khairna from Almora and met with an accident near Hanuman Temple due to which driver and cleaner were seriously injured. The cleaner and driver were brought to Base Hospital Almora for treatment but the cleaner Kushal Singh succumbed to injuries. According to the petitioner the deceased was 22 years of age and was getting Rs. 3,500/- per month as salary. The petitioner claimed Rs. 4 Lacs as compensation. 3- The Opposite Party No.1, owner of the offending Tanker filed objection before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner and admitted that the 2 deceased was in his employment as helper/cleaner and also admitted that he died in the accident while he was going to Khairna in the said truck in the capacity of helper/cleaner. The owner of the Tanker alleged that he used to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month salary to the deceased. He also alleged that the tanker at the time of accident was insured with New India Assurance Company, the driver was having valid driving license, hence the liability to pay compensation was denied. 4- The Opposite Party No.2, New India Assurance Company also contested the case by filing objection and denied the contents mentioned in the petition. 5- Parties adduced evidence before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. Thereafter, the learned Commissioner after having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the evidence on record, allowed the petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,92,024/-, including the amount of interest @ 8% per annum for the period 27.6.2005 to 27.3.2006 and directed the New India Assurance Company to deposit the aforesaid amount within a month. 6- Feeling aggrieved the New India Assurance Company has preferred this appeal, before this Court. 7- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8- Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the insurance policy was not covering the risk of cleaner and as per policy of insurance only one person was covered for which an amount of Rs. 25/- was obtained as premium by the insurer, but the learned 3 Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, has failed to consider this material aspect, therefore, he committed gross illegality and perversity directing the insurer to pay compensation in lieu of death of the deceased in the case. 9- I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the insurance company. Copy of the insurance policy has been filed on record. From perusal of this document, it reveals that owner, driver and one employee was insured for personal accident and premium was obtained by the insurance company. The owner of the offending tanker has admitted the employment of the deceased in the said tanker in the capacity of helper/cleaner and also admitted that his death was caused in the accident during the course of his duty, while he was going to Khairna riding the tanker. The owner of the tanker also filed on record the registration, fitness, insurance policy and the driving license and these documents were valid at the time of accident. Therefore, the learned Commissioner has rightly held liable the Insurance Company to pay the compensation in lieu of death of deceased/workman. 10- As far as the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the owner of the offending tanker has admitted that he used to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month salary to the deceased. The learned Commissioner on the basis of minimum wages of Rs. 2,489/- prevalent at the relevant time, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,75,495/- taking the age of the deceased as 22 years. The learned Commissioner further awarded a sum of Rs. 16,529/- towards interest calculated @ 8% per annum for the period 27.6.2005 to 27.3.2006, the total compensation being Rs. 2,92,024/-. He has rightly calculated the amount of compensation on the minimum wages, 4 prevalent at the relevant time. I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the learned Commissioner. 11- For the reasons above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12- Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and award dated 18-5-2006 is confirmed. The interim stay dated 25-7-2006, passed by this Court stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB 5