Point of Law: S. 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, inter alia, provides that if personal injury is caused to a workman by an accident arising out or in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of Chapter-II of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

JUDGMENT :

As despite repeated calls, none has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents, they are proceeded against ex parte.

2. By way of this appeal, the Insurance Company has challenged award dated 20.03.2010, passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation Act-Cum-S.D.O.(Civil), Churah, Distt. Chamba (H.P.)., in Case No.02 of 2006, titled Smt. Savitri Devi & others Versus Shri Ramesh Kumar & another, in terms whereof while allowing the claim petition preferred by the claimants under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, learned Commissioner has awarded an amount of Rs.5,44,919/- in favour of the claimants. This appeal was admitted on 13.10.2011 on the following substantial questions of law:-

“1. Whether the learned Commissioner has gravely erred in holding that there was casual connection between the accident and the employment of the deceased?

2. Whether the learned Commissioner has gravely erred in directing the appellant to pay penalty in its failure to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the passing of the award ?”

3. I have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and have gone through the record of the case as well as the award under challenge.

4. Record demonstrates that an application for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act was filed by the petitioner i.e. the private respondent herein, on the ground that husband of petitioner No.1 father of petitioners No.2 to 4 and son of petitioner No.5, namely, Mahinder Kumar was a workman, employed by respondent Ramesh Kumar. He was engaged as a driver and in the course of his employment, Mahinder Kumar died in between 10.07.2005 and 11.07.2005, while he was on duty of the respondent/employer at Lakhanpur Border, Jammu & Kashmir. According to the petitioners, on 10.07.2005, at around 9:00 p.m., deceased who was driving the vehicle bearing Registration No. HR-55-A-2346 from Srinagar to Pathankot, had reached at Lakhanpur Check Post/Barrier. There he stopped/ stayed to get his vehicle cleared. However, thereafter, the deceased went missing and his body was recovered in Kashmir Canal near Lakhanpur barrier on 16,07.2005. Deceased Mahinder Kumar died due to drowning in the Canal, which accident arose in the course of his employment. Thereafter, a rapat was duly lodged to this effect at Police Station, Lakhanpur. The petitioners being dependent upon deceased-Mahinder Kumar were entitled for compensation and accordingly, a prayer was made to compensate them to the tune of Rs.6,17,850/-. Record demonstrates that initially the Insurance Company was not impleaded as a party before the learned Commissioner, but subsequently it stood impleded as such.

5. The petition was resisted by respondent No.1, therein inter alia, on the ground that though Mahinder Kumar was engaged by him on contract basis to ply the vehicle in lieu of payment of Rs.125/- per day and that the deceased was driving the vehicle from Srinagar to Pathankot and had stopped for the purpose of clearance at Lakhanpur Barrier. But as per the said respondent, on the fateful night, Mahinder Kumar without the permission of the respondent and without giving any intimation to the staff of another vehicle left the vehicle unattended alongwith his father and on the next morning, driver of other vehicle informed the respondent about the abandoning of the vehicle by Mahinder. In lieu of said act and conduct of deceased-Mahinder, the stand of respondent/employer was that it could not be said that Mahinder was performing the job under the direction of the employer.

6. The petition was resisted by the Insurance Company, inter alia, on the ground that as the dead body of the deceased allegedly found on 18.07.2005 in Kashmir Canal due to drowning, which could not be termed as an accident happening in the course of employment, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the claimants on behalf of the employer. Further it was denied that the claimants were e