JUDGMENT :

Instant appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, amended upto date (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) lays challenge to order dated 29.01.2019, passed by learned Commissioner, for, Employees Compensation, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. in Case No. 2/2 of 2014 CIS No.9/2014, whereby learned Commissioner below, while allowing the claim petition having been filed by appellant/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’) under Section 3 of the Act, held her entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.5,33,925/- along with simple interest @ 12% per annum, on account of death of workman Hem Raj, payable by respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Besides aforesaid amount of compensation, learned Commissioner below also held appellant entitled to sum of Rs.1,14,071/- on account of penalty and interest payable by respondent No.1, i.e. owner of vehicle bearing No.HP-01N-0237.

2. Precisely, the facts as emerge from the record are that the appellant being dependent and legal heir of deceased Hem Raj, filed a petition under Section 3 of the Act, seeking therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lac on account of death of aforesaid, Hem Raj, who was working as driver with respondent No.1 in his Trax Traveler No.HP-01N-0237. Appellant submitted in the claim petition that on 11.10.2014, the aforesaid Trax Traveler met with an accident at Bindla Khud, while carrying passengers from Timbi to Millah, as a consequence of which, deceased Hem Raj sustained head injuries on his person resulting into his death. Accident was reported to Police Station Shillai and thereafter FIR No.41/2014, dated 12.10.2014, under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC, was registered. Appellant Kamla Devi, who happens to be mother of the deceased, claiming herself fully dependent upon deceased Hem Raj, sought compensation from the respondents. She submitted that on the date of accident, age of deceased Hem Raj was 27 years and he was being paid salary to the tune of Rs.7500/- per month by the employer. She claimed that ill-fated vehicle was duly insured at the time of accident, but despite repeated requests, neither owner of the vehicle nor respondent/Insurance Company paid any claim and as such, she is entitled to be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lac.

3. Aforesaid claim of the petition came to be refuted by respondents. Respondent No.1, claimed that compensation, if any, is to be paid by the respondent No.2/Insurance Company because at the time of alleged incident, vehicle in question was duly insured. Respondent No.1, specifically admitted that Hem Raj was experienced driver and he was also having a valid and effective driving licence.. While admitting that the deceased Hem Raj was working as a driver with vehicle bearing registration No.HP-01N- 0237, respondent No.1, denied that he was paying sum of Rs.7500/- per month to the deceased. He claimed that deceased was paid a salary of Rs.5000/- per month. This witness specifically admitted that deceased Hem Raj met with an accident and sustained injuries resulting into his death.

4. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company claimed that the deceased was not having any valid and effective driving licence. and the vehicle was being plied in violation of term and conditions of the policy and as such, it cannot be held liable to indemnify as insurer. Respondent No.2, also denied that decease Hem Raj was working as driver in Trax Traveler No.HP-01N-0237 owned by respondent No.1 and at that time, he was getting salary of Rs.75,00/- per month. Respondent No.2, specifically denied the relationship, if any, of employer and employee inter se deceased Hem Raj and respondent No.1. Respondent No.2, also claimed before court below that the claim petition has been filed by the appellant in collusion with respondent No.1 in order to grab undue compensation from respondent No.2.

5