Compensation should be awarded based on the salary of the deceased.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

This is an appeal under Section 30 of The Workmen’s Compensation act, 1923, against the judgment and award dated 02.07.2010, passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner/Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Kumaon Region, Haldwani, District Nainital, in Workmen Compensation Case No. 27 of 2006, “Smt. Vineeta, w/o late Sanjeev Singh Vs. M/s. Bombay Verma Trading Corporation Ltd. & Others”.

2. As per the claim petition, the case of the respondent claimant as unfolded is that her husband deceased Sanjeev Singh was working as a Weilder with respondent no.3 and on 14.06.2006, when he was working in the establishment of respondent no.2 at about 09:30 AM, a tractor hit him, as a result of which, he sustained severe injuries over his head and body. He was rushed up to the Jawahar Lal Nehru District Hospital, Rudrapur, by the people present at the scene of occurrence, where on the same day, he succumbed to the above injuries. It has been stated in the claim petition by the respondent no.1 claimant that at the time of death the age of her husband was 25 years and was getting a salary of Rs.4000/- per month from his employer. She stated that death of her husband was caused during and in the course of his employment with respondent nos.2&3. She further alleged that even though, the information regarding the accident was in the knowledge of the respondent nos.2&3, no compensation was paid to her, by the respondent employers. With these averments, she filed claim petition before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kumaon Region, Haldwani, District Nainital/Workmen Compensation Commissioner and prayed for a sum of Rs.4,33,820/- as compensation with interest and penalty.

3. The claim was contested by the appellant Insurance Company as well as the respondent nos.2 and 3, by filing separate written statements to the claim petition. The respondent no.2 M/s Bombay Verma Trading Corporation Ltd., by filing his written statement mentioned that the deceased Sanjeev Singh was not employed with him, but was employed with the respondent no.3 M/s Teckmak Engineers and Contractors.

4. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that there were no relations of master and servant between the deceased and him and for that reason, the respondent no.2 was not liable for any accident, which did not take place in the premises of the respondent no.2.

5. The respondent no.3 M/s Teckmak Engineers and Contractors contested the claim by filing his written statement and admitted that deceased Sanjeev Singh was working on the fateful date i.e. 14.06.2006, in the establishment of respondent no.2 and at about 09:30 AM in the factory, he was hit by a tractor and due to the injury sustained in that accident, he succumbed to those injuries. The respondent no.3 admitted the employment, claim, date of accident and the salary he was getting on the date of accident. But, in the additional pleas, it was stated by him that the respondent no.3 was the contractor of the respondent no.2 and the deceased Sanjeev Singh was in employment with him as a Weilder and during the course of his employment, he died in the accident. It is further pleaded by him that the respondent no.3 has taken a Workmen Compensation Insurance Cover for his employees and workmen, from the appellant Insurance Company, which was valid w.e.f. 22.09.2005 to 21.09.2006 and the policy no. was 152900/41/05/00135; and if any amount is to be paid to the wife of the deceased employee Sanjeev Singh, it is only the appellant Insurance Company, which is liable to pay.

6. The appellant Insurance Company has also filed its written statement denying the claim petition in toto and further submitted that before filing the claim petition for compensation, no notice as contemplated under Section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923, was ever issued by the respondent-claimant to the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company further submitted that the respondent-claimant has to prove her