The New India Assurance Co Ltd v. Kusum Lata Devi and Ors

1. The appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 20th June, 2013 whereby the learned Commissioner, Employees' Compensation directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,84,170/- towards compensation along with interest @ 12% p.a. to the respondents 1 to 4 and imposed penalty of Rs.92,085/- on respondent No.5.

2. The accident dated 27th July, 2000 resulted in the death of Madan Lal, who was driving tempo No. DL- 1 -TEMP/FI-7247, owned by respondent No.5. The deceased was the employee of respondent No.5 at the time of the accident. The deceased was aged 47 years and was drawing a salary of Rs. 3000/- p.m. from respondent No.5. The deceased was survived by his widow and three sons, who filed the claim petition before the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation.

3. Respondent No.5 contested the claim petition on the ground that the FAO 349/2013 2015:DHC:11915 (7 deceased was employee of respondent No.6. However, respondent No.5 could not prove this averment. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was owned by respondent No.5 and, therefore, the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation held the deceased to be the employee of respondent No.5.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged at the time of hearing of the appeal that the deceased was not the employee of respondent No.5 and, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. It is further pleaded that the appellant is not liable to pay the interest on the awarded amount.

5. The proviso of Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 provides that no appeal shall lie against any order, unless substantial question of law is involved in the appeal.

6. This court is of the view that no question of law is involved in this appeal. That apart, this court finds no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, as the vehicle in question was admittedly owned by the respondent No.5 at the time of the accident. There is also no infirmity in the direction of the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation to the appellant to pay the interest. The appeal is therefore dismissed. All the pending applications are disposed of

7. Respondent No.1 is present in court. She submits that her sons, respondents 2 to 4 are all major and they are living separately. She further submits that she is staying with her daughter, who is financially supporting her.

8. The appellant as well as respondent No.5 have deposited Rs.5,03,919/- with the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, which have been kept in a fixed deposit with State Bank of India, Pushpa Bhawan, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi.

9. State Bank of India, Pushpa Bhawan, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi, is directed to discharge FDR No. 8076184273 dated 24th March, 2015 for Rs.5,03,919.00 and keep a sum of Rs.4,50,000I- in fixed deposit in the following manner:-

(i) Fixed deposit for Rs.50,000I- in the name of Kusum Lata Devi for a period of one year.

(ii) Fixed deposit for Rs.50,000I- in the name of Kusum Lata Devi for a period of two years.

(iii) Fixed deposit for Rs.50,000I- in the name of Kusum Lata Devi

(iv) Fixed deposit for Rs.50,000I- in the name of Kusum Lata Devi for a period of four years.

(v) Fixed deposit for Rs.50,000/- in the name of Kusum Lata Devi for a period of five years.

(vi) Fixed deposit for Rs.50,000/- in the name of Kusum Lata Devi for a period of six years.