IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 4001 of 2013 Reserved on: 17.6.2025 Date of decision: 8 .7 .202 5 Satya Devi. ….Appellant.

Versus Mehar Singh and Another. ….Respondents.

Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Appellant : Mr.Lovneesh Kanwar, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Tarun Garla, Advocate.

For the Respondents: None for respondent No. 1, though represented by Mr.Bhupinder Thakur, Advocate.

Mr.Praneet Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge Claimant/appellant has preferred this appeal against order dated 26.12.2012 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hamirpur, exercising power of Commissioner under Workman Compensation Act/Employees Compensation Act, in WCA Case No. 41 of 2011, titled as Satya Devi Vs. Mehar Singh and Another, whereby claim petition preferred by appellant/claimant has been dismissed on the ground that

1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes deceased son of appellant/claimant was not workman within the meaning of the Act and, therefore, accident did not occurred during or in couPrse of employment of the workman and also on the ground that petition was not maintainable being time barred, however, with findings that vehicle at the time of accident was being driven by deceased and he was possessing a valid and effective driving licence.

2. In present case deceased Amar Singh son of appellant/claimant during night intervening 24^th-25^th September, 2001 had died in accident while he wasu driving Tractor bearing No. HP-22-4843, owed and possessed by roespondent No. 1 Mehar Singh who is brother of deceased Amar Singh. Postmortem of dead body of Amar Singh was conducted in Zonal Hospital Hamirpur, after registration of FIR No.

123/2001 at Police Station Bhoranj with respect to accident.

3. g Tractor involved in the accident was duly insured with irespondent No. 2-The New India Assurance Company Limited, Hamirpur. 4. According to claimant, deceased Amar Singh was employed as driver on monthly wages of ₹3500/- by his brother Mehar Singh, owner of the Tractor, as Mehar Singh was in service at Solan. At the time of accident age of deceased Amar Singh was 33 years.

5. Notice of accident was served upon the Insurance Company a day after the date of accident.

6. Appellant/claimant had filed a Claim Petition MAC No. 62 of 2001 on 20.10.2001 for awarding compensation to her under theP Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the MACT, Hamirpur, which was dismissed by the MACT. Whereupon, appellant/claimant had preferred appeal FAO No.

236 of 2003 against the award passed by MACT, Ha mirpur.

7. During pendency of FAO No. 236 of 2003, it was noticed that in view of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2004 ACJ 934, the original Claim Petition itself was not maintainable under Sectioon 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 since in the petition income of deceased was pleaded as ₹3500/- per month, which was more than ₹40,000/- per annum. Thereafter, vide order dated 29.6.2007, with observation that Claim Petition preferred under Section 163Ag of the Act was bonafide, appellant/claimant was permitted to iwithdraw original Claim Petition with liberty to file another petition before appropriate forum, and the award dated 14.2.2003 passed by the MACT in MAC No. 62 of 2001 was set aside.

8. Thereafter appellant/claimant preferred Claim Petition before the Commissioner Workman, Bhoranj. At the time of filing of this Claim Petition before the Commissioner Workman, the power of Commissioner was being exercised by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)/Sub Divisional Magistrate, (SDO Civil). However, during pendency of Claim Petition, the Workmen Compensation Act was replaced by Employees Compensation Act, and powers of Commissioner were also vestePd with Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge, instead of SDO (Civil)/SDM, whereupon Claim Petition pr