High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kuldip Kaur & Ors - FAO-1170-2006  RD-P&H 1031 (21 February 2006)
FAO No.1170 of 2006(O&M)
Date of Decision: 2.03.2006
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Kuldip Kaur and others
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
Present: Shri Suman Jain, Advocate for the appellant JUDGMENT
Civil Misc. Nos.4618-CII and 4619-CII of 2006 In view of reasons given in these applications, which are accompanied by affidavits, the same are allowed subject to all just exceptions and delay in re-filing the appeal of 171 days and in filing 100 days is condoned.
FAO No.1170 of 2006
Vide order, under challenge, Commissioner, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, awarded compensation to the respondents, to the tune of Rs.3,79,120/-, for death of Mohan Singh, husband of respondent No.1, father of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and son of respondent No.4, who died in a motor vehicle accident.
It is apparent from the records and as discussed by the Court below that the deceased was employed with respondent No.5, as a truck driver. This fact was even admitted by respondent No.5, while appearing in the witness box. It has also been proved on record that the death has occurred in the course of employment. Claimants are widow, minor children and mother of the deceased. This Court feels that keeping in view age of the deceased, compensation awarded is perfectly justified.
Contention of counsel for the appellant, that the appellant has wrongly been fastened with the liability to pay interest, is liable to be rejected. Counsel has failed to show to this Court that there existed any clause in the Insurance Policy that the Insurance Company shall not be liable to make payment of interest on the compensation awarded. In view of ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi and others, (1997) 8 Supreme Court Cases 1 and also ratio of judgment of this Court in FAO No.326 of 2006 titled as United India Insurance Company Limited v. Smt.Shankutla Devi and others, decided on 20.1.2006, no case is made out for interference. No substantial question of law has been raised at the time of arguments.
March 02, 2006 ( Jasbir Singh )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.