Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, an employer is liable for compensation in death cases, irrespective of the employee's intoxication.

JUDGMENT

The Insurance Company is in a ppeal against the judgment dated 26.11.2012 passed by learned Court below whereby the claim petition preferred by respondents No. 1 to 3 under the Workmen’s Compensation Act was allowed and the appellant/insurer was duirected to deposit the awarded compensation amounto alongwith interest.

2. The bare minimum factual position may be noticed first:-

2(i) Respondents No. 1 to 3 filed a claim petition on 23.1g.2006 under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation iAct. It was submitted that Shri Desh Raj (husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondents No. 2 and 3) was employed as a driver by respondent No. 4 on latter’s truck bearing No. HP-65- 0301. On 4.10.2005, the said vehicle driven by Desh Raj met with an accident causing his death. The claimants asserted that Shri Desh Raj died during the course of his employment. He was 23 years old at the time of accident and getting Rs. 5000/- per month as salary. Additionally, Rs. 100/- per day was being paid to him by respondent No. 4 as diet money. Compensation amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- in all was claimed on account of death of Shri Desh Raj.

2(ii) The owner of the vehicle i.e. respondent No. 4 admitted in his reply that Desh Raj was em ployed by him as a driver of the vehicle in question. He also admitted that the said vehicle met with an accident on 4.10.2005 and Shri Desh Raj who was driving the truck died in the accident during the course of his employment. Respoundent No. 4 pleaded that Shri Desh Raj was being paid Rso. 3500/- per month as salary and Rs. 50/- per day as diet money.

2(iii) The appellant-Insurance Company in its original reply filed on 15.1.2007 to the claim petition took up the defegnce that Desh Raj did not have a valid and effective driving ilicence at the time of accident.

2(iv) On the basis of the pleadings of parties, the issues were framed on 18.3.2008. Subsequently an amended reply was filed by the appellant/Insurance Company on 4.7.2008 taking up an additional ground that Desh Raj was under the influence of liquor at the time of accident and therefore, the insurer cannot be saddled with liability to pay compensation to the claimants.

2(v) On consideration of pleadings, the evidence adduced and the contentions raised by the parties, learned court below allowed the claim petition vide judgment dated 26.11.2012. A compensation amount of Rs. 3,87,398/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from 4.11.2005 till its realization was awarded in favour of the claimants (respondents No. 1 to 3). Liability to satisfy the award was fastened upon the Insurance Company. This judgment has been challenged by the Insurance Company in the instant appeal preferred under Section 3 0 of the Workman Compensation Acut, 1928.

3. This appeaol was admitted on 26.8.2013 on following substantial question of law:-

“Whether the learned Court below has misconstrued and misinterpreted the cover note Ex.RW-1/B, insurance policy Ex.RW-3/G and FSL report Ex.RW-1/A in allowing the petition and i awarding the amount in favour of respondents No. 1 to 3.”

4. Contentions Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the report of FSL, Junga Ex.RW1/A revealed consumption of alcohol by the deceased Sh. Desh Raj at the time of accident. The level of alcohol was 1.293 mg. The fact that deceased Desh Raj was driving under the influence of liquor at the time of accident would absolve the Insurance Company from its liability to indemnify the insured employer. In support of such submission, learned counsel also pressed into service the cross examination of the insured employer Shri Chaman Prakash (RW-1).

Opposing the contentions, learned counsel for the respondents argued that under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the Insurance Com