The court affirmed that in workmen's compensation claims, compensation must consider the correct age and disability of the claimant, and penalties can be adjusted based on statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT

Karamjit Singh, J.

The present appeal arises out of the order dated 4th October, 2004 passed by the Commissioner under Wrokmen's Compensation Act, Panipat (in short 'the Commissioner').

2. The brief facts of the case of appellant-claimant are that on 27.11.2001, appellant-claimant was working as a driver on Maruti Van No.DL-4CL-2862, which was owned by respondent No.1-Sunil Hooda and was insured with respondent No.2-National Insurance Company Ltd. The monthly salary of appellant-claimant was Rs. 3,000/- per month besides Rs. 50/- per day for meals and Rs. 50/- per day as and when he was to go out station. On 27.11.2001, appellant-claimant was going to Delhi in said Maruti Van along with Rajni, Bramanand, Parmod etc. At about 5 p.m. when they reached near village Ladsoli, the tyre of the Martuti van got burst and it turned turtle. Appellant- claimant suffered injures due to said accident and was taken to D.N. Sharma Hospital, Sector 14, Sonipat where he remained admitted for 5 days and thereafter he was shifted to Sanjivni Nursing Home, Panipat, where he had undergone surgery. That more than Rs. 50,000/- were spent on his medical treatment and on account of the aforesaid accidental injuries appellant-claimant suffered permanent physical disability. That the appellant-claimant asked his employer to compensate him for the aforesaid injuries, which were sustained by him during the course of employment. However, respondent No.1 failed to pay any compensation. Hence the claim application was filed before the Commissioner, Panipat by the appellant.

3. The claim application was contested by the insurance company and it filed written statement whereby all the averments of the claim application were denied and it was pleaded that the claim application be dismissed.

4. However, respondent No.1 (employer) failed to appear in the Court concerned despite service and consequently he was proceeded against ex-parte.

5. Appellant-claimant filed replication controverting the averments made by respondent No.2 in its written statement.

6. The Court of Commissioner framed the following issues:-

i. Whether there is relationship of employee and employer between the claimant and respondent No.1? OPA

ii. Whether the claimant is entitled to amount as claimed for or not? OPA

iii. Relief.

7. Counsel for the appellant-claimant examined CW-1 Bhramanand, CW-2 Harminder Singh and CW-4 Dr. S.S. Kalra. The appellant-claimant himself appeared in the witness-box as CW-3.

8. On the other hand counsel for respondent No.2 tendered insurance policy.

9. After hearing counsel for the parties, the Commissioner allowed the compensation application and considered the monthly wages of appellant as Rs. 3,000/- and insurance company was held liable to pay compensation amount of Rs. 1,47,148/- to the claimant with interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of order till its realization and at the same time, penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on respondent No.1.

10. The appellant-claimant being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of compensation has filed the present appeal.

11. I have heard the counsel for the parties.

12. The counsel for the appellant-claimant while assailing the impugned order has inter alia submitted that the compensation awarded by the Commissioner is on lower side and requires to be enhanced. The counsel has further contended that while passing the impugned order, the Commissioner considered the age of the victim as 36 years, whereas the actual age of the appellant-claimant at the time of accident was 26 years as is evident from copy of his driving license Mark C4, which is available on the record and accordingly factor of 194.64 applied