ASOPA, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By this Misc. Appeal under Section 30(aa) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 filed by the appellant Insurance Company, the appellant has challenged the award dated 16th March, 2012 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner (Employee's Compensation Commissioner) Jaipur District (Second), Jaipur in Claim Case No.WCC/F/89/2010, Risal Singh & Ors. vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the claimant respondent nos.1 and 2 filed claim before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner claiming compensation of Rs.4,42,740/- on account of death of their son Narmesh alleged to have been caused in a road accident allegedly took place on 1st August, 2003 during the course of employment of respondent no.4 M/s. Best Roadways Ltd. In the said claim petition Smt. Sushma Devi, wife of deceased Narmesh was impleaded as non-claimant no.3. It was averred in the claim petition that at the time of death, deceased Narmesh was employed in the capacity of first Driver on Truck No. HR-38-S-3877 owned by M/s. Best Roadways Ltd., respondent no.2 in the claim petition and respondent no.4 in the instant appeal. It was further averred that on 1st August, 2003 while the deceased was driving the truck from Delhi to Jaipur at NH.8 at about 5.00 A.M. met with an accident with another vehicle Trailer No.RJ01-G-2690 as a result of which the deceased died on the spot. FIR No.209/2003 about the accident was registered at Police Station Pragpura, District Jaipur. It was further averred that at the time of the accident, the deceased was employed with respondent no.2 and was about 22 years of age. He was earning Rs.6,000/- per month as salary and was also getting Rs.50/- per day as daily allowance. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to get Rs.4,42, 740/- as compensation on account of accidental death of deceased Narmesh.

4. In reply to the claim petition, respondent no.4 herein has admitted the averments of the claim petition and also admitted that the deceased was getting monthly salary at the rate of Rs.6,000/-. However, it has disputed its liability to pay compensation.

5. The appellant Insurance Company also filed its reply to the claim petition denying the averments made by the claimants in the claim petition. It was mentioned that it is a case of collusion between the employer and the claimants. A specific plea to the effect that the deceased who was working as a driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time, therefore, on account of breach of the conditions of the policy, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. Objection regarding filing the claim petition delayed by 7 years was also taken and it was averred that due to inordinate delay in filing the claim petition, the same is not maintainable.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Workmen Compensation Commissioner framed the following five issues:-

^^1- vk;k e`rd foi{kh la[;k 2 ds ;gka fnukad 1-8-2003 dks mlds okgu la[;k & ,p-vkj-38 ,l 3877 ij cgSfl;r pkyd fu;qä Fkk\

2- vk;k e`rd dh foi{kh la[;k 2 ds fu;kstu esa mlds funsZ'kkuqlkj ,oa fgrkFkZ dk;Z djrs gq, e`R;q gqbZ\

3- vk;k foi{kh chek dEiuh ds tokcnkos dk izkFkhZx.k ds izfrdj feyus ij D;k D;k izHkko iM+sxk\

4- vk;k izkFkhZx.k foi{khx.k ls izfrdj ysus ds gdnkj gS\ ;fn gka] rks fdlls o fdruk fdruk\

5- vuqrks"k\

7. In support of claim petition, claimant Rishal Singh appeared as a witness and three documents Ex.1 FIR, Ex.2 Post Mortem Report and Ex.3 Final Report were produced whereas from the side of the respondent Insurance Company, Ex.NA.1, Insurance Policy was produced.

8. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner after hearing both the parties and after considering the material and evidence produced on record by the parties on issue nos. 1 and 2 came to the conclusion that the accident was caused while driving vehicle No. HR-38-S-3877 during the course of employment

Click Here to Read the rest of this document