JUDGMENT :

By way of instant appeal, the appellant ( for short, “ Insurer”) has assailed Award dated 19.10.2009 passed by learned Commissioner under Workmen’s Compensation Act, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. (for short, “Commissioner”) in case File No. 3/2007.

2. Petitioner/claimant (for short, “wife”) preferred claim petition under Workmen Compensation Act (for short, “Act”) before the learned Commissioner for grant of compensation on account of death of her husband late Sh. Pawan Kumar, who was employed as driver by Respondent No.3 herein (for short, “owner”) to drive truck bearing registration No.HR 38D3310. As per wife, on 27.12.2006 her husband while driving above mentioned truck, in the course of his employment with owner, met with an accident and died as a result thereof. Age of the deceased, at the time of his death, was stated to be 29 years. As claimed, he was being paid salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. The truck in question was stated to be insured with the insurer at the time of accident. Wife also impleaded mother of deceased as proforma respondent (for short, “mother”) being one of the Class-I heir of the deceased.

3. The owner, despite service, chose not to contest the claim petition before the learned Commissioner and was proceeded ex-parte. Appellant-Insurer contested the petition on the grounds that the vehicle in question was not insured at the time of accident. The deceased was not holding legal and valid driving licence and the death of Pawan Kumar was not during the course of his employment. In addition, breach of terms of policy in generality was also pleaded.

4. Learned Commissioner framed the following issues:

i) Whether the deceased died on 27.12.2006 in an accident of truck No. HR-38D-3310? ….OPP

(ii) Whether the deceased died during the employment of respondent No.1? ...OPP

(iii) Whether the applicant is the sole dependent of deceased Pawan Kumar and entitled to the award of compensation with interest and also the penalty to the extent of 50%? ..OPP

(iv) Whether the vehicle involved with accident was not insured? ..OPR.

(v) Relief.

5. Petitioner/Respondent No.1 examined herself as AW-1 and proved on record copies of documents FIR (Ex.AW-1/B), Post Mortem Report (Ex. AW-1/C), Family Register (Ex.AW-1/D) and Insurance Cover Note (Ex. AW-1/E). She reiterated the contents of the claim petition on oath. In her cross-examination on behalf of the insurer it was suggested to her that the cheque, through which premium was paid by the owner for purchase of policy of insurance, had remained unpaid. To which she feigned ignorance. Besides this, it was also suggested to the wife that at the time of accident vehicle was without insurance, but she had denied such suggestion. Another witness, AW-2 Sh. Niranjan Singh, was also examined. As per this witness, he was also a driver and was on wheels following the vehicle of deceased at the time of accident in question. He further deposed that deceased Pawan Kumar was employed as driver by the owner. The cross-examination of this witness by the insurer was also on the similar lines as that of wife.

6. In rebuttal, the insurer, through statement of its counsel, placed on record a cover note in respect of vehicle in question for the period 07.03.2007 to 05.04.2007 as Ex.RW-2/A and Ex.RW-2/B. No other evidence was produced.

7. Learned counsel representing the mother made a statement adopting evidence and stand taken by the claimant. It was, however, asserted that the mother also was Class-I heir of deceased Pawan Kumar.

8. Learned Commissioner, allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.5,61,742/- including interest and apportioned the same in the ratio of 75% and 25% in favour of the wife and the mother respectively. The liability to satisfy the award was fastened on the insurer by holding that insurance cover vide Ex.AW-1/E was valid on the date of accident.

9. The insurer has assailed the impugned award mainly on the grounds that the award was result of misreading and mis-ap