Only one claim petition is maintainable per cause of action under the Employee’s Compensation Act, preventing subsequent claims by other dependents once a settlement has been reached.

JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

1. Since all the appeals arise out of a common award, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The present appeals have been filed by the appellant(s) against the impugned award dated 22.06.2023, passed by learned Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation Act, Theog, District Shimla, H.P., in Petition No. 7-2 of 2015.

3. Succinctly, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Sh. Raju was employed as driver with respondent No. 1 in a truck bearing Registration No. HP 62- 1556. On 03.10.2013, when he was coming from Chandigarh to Theog in the aforesaid truck, which was loaded with bricks, suddenly the truck rolled down near Housing Board Colony, Theog. In the said accident, Raju sustained injuries on his person and as such, he was taken to Civil Hospital, Theog, wherefrom, he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. However, on the way to Chandigarh ,he died at Solan. Post mortem of the deceased was conducted by the Medical Officers at Solan, vide post mortem No. 55/13, dated 04.10.2013 and FIR No. 135, dated 03.10.2013 was lodged at Police Station, Theog. At the time of accident, deceased was about 43 years of age and was the only earning member of the family. Consequently, his mother, who was totally dependent upon him had filed the instant claim petition.

4. Respondent No. 1 owner of the vehicle in question contested the petition by filing reply, wherein, it has been averred that the deceased was driving the vehicle in question on the relevant date, time and place and was having a valid driving licence at the time of accident. It has further been averred that he died during the course of employment and his monthly salary was Rs. 6,000/- per month and in addition to that, he was also getting a diet money of Rs. 50/- per day.

5. Respondent No. 2 Insurance Company also contested the petition by filing reply and on merits, it has been averred that the matter has been compromised as per claim petition No. 2-2 of 2014 and full and final amount arising out of the death of the deceased has been assessed and settled. It has been denied that the petitioner was dependent upon the deceased. It has been averred that entire amount of compensation as per the Act has been deposited before the learned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, therefore, if at all, the petitioner is entitled to any amount arising out of the death of the deceased, the same can be recovered by her from the other legal representatives of the deceased as the matter has been compromised vide claim petition No. 2-2 of 2014.

6. Respondents No. 3 and 4 have also contested the petition by filing reply, wherein, it has been averred that they have already received compensation amount from the Insurance Company, being wife and daughter of the deceased. It has also been averred that they have neither claimed nor have received any amount with respect to the share of petitioner, Shibi Devi. They also averred that copy of Parivar Register was placed on record in claim petition No. 2-2 of 2014, wherein, name of Shibi Devi was mentioned, however, the Insurance Company settled the claim with them on the first date of hearing for a sum of Rs. 7,20,000/-.

7. By filing rejoinder(s) the contents of the reply(ies) were denied and that of the petition were reiterated.

8. On 03.03.2016, learned Commissioner below framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the petitioner was the dependent upon deceased Raju and hence, she is entitled for compensation amount, as claimed by her?OPA

2. Whether the present petition is not maintainable, as alleged?OPR-2

3. Whether the