The central legal point established in the judgment is that the court found the deceased died due to an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, based on the evidence presented by the claimants and the lack of evidence from the appellant/insurance company or the employers of the deceased.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant has challenged award dated 29.11.2010 passed by the Commissioner under Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (ALC), Jammu, whereby the respondents/claimants have been held entitled to compensation in the amount of Rs.3,05,775/- along with a sum of Rs.2,07,000/- as interest.

2. It appears that the respondents, who happen to be the widow and minor children of deceased Lalit Kumar Sharma, filed a claim petition before the ALC Jammu. In the claim petition, it was submitted that the deceased was working as a Chowkidar/Watchman with the employers, respondent Nos. 8 and 9 to the present appeal. It was alleged that on 04.03.2005, the deceased died during the course of his employment. It was further alleged that the deceased was getting monthly wages of Rs.3000/- per month and his age was 32 years at the time of his death.

3. Respondent No.9-Jai Bharat Corporation Chemical Private Limited in its reply before the ALC denied that the deceased was its employee. It was further submitted that the said respondent had awarded the tender for completion of civil work at his place to respondent No. 8-M/s Sujata Construction Company and that it has nothing to do with the M/s Sujata Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

4. Respondent No. 8 M/s Sujata Construction Company in its reply submitted that the deceased-workman was insured under W. C. Policy No. 41/05/03, CL No. 41/06/1 with appellant/insurance company. It was submitted that the Police after investigation has concluded that the deceased had died by consuming insecticide and that he has committed suicide. It has been further submitted that the deceased has not died during the course of his employment.

5. Initially appellant/insurance company was not made a party to the proceedings before the ALC, Jammu but later on, it was impleaded as party respondent to the proceedings. In its reply, the appellant/insurance company submitted that the deceased had died as a result of poisoning and that he has committed suicide. It has been submitted that the aforesaid conclusion has been drawn by the Investigating Agency after the investigation of the case. The appellant/insurance company contended that the deceased was not a workman covered under the policy and that the deceased did not die during the course of his employment.

6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner (ALC), Jammu framed the following issues :

“1. Whether the deceased Sh. Lalit Kumar falls under the definition of a Workman as prescribed under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (OPP)

2. Whether the deceased met with an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment for respondent No. 1 or 2 (OPP).

3. What was the age and wages of the deceased at the time of accident (OPP).

4. Whether the respondent No. 2 i.e. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. are liable to indemnify the insured i.e. respondent No. 1 (OPR-1).

5. Relief.”

7. Respondents/claimants examined respondent No.1-Ranju Sharma, widow of deceased-Lalit Kumar, Jail Kala Devi and Kailash Kumar as witnesses in support of their case. No evidence was produced by the appellant/insurance company or by respondent Nos. 8 and 9 before the ALC Jammu. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Commissioner came to the conclusion that the death of the deceased had taken place during the course of his employment and that he was earning Rs.3000/- per month as wages and his age was 32 years. On this basis, the impugned award came to be passed.

8. The appellant/insurance company has challenged the impugned award on the ground that the findings of the Commissioner are not in accordance with the law inasmuch as there was evidence on record before the Commissioner to show that the deceased had died as a result of poisoning and that he had committed suicide. It has been further contended that the award passed by the learned Commissioner does not conform to the requirements of Rule 32 of the Workmen Compensation Rules, 1924.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties