Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. versus SHEELA WANTI & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


National Insurance Company Limited. v. Sheela Wanti & Ors. - FAO-3194-2002 [2006] RD-P&H 5183 (3 August 2006)

F.A.O.No.3194 of 2002 &

Cross-objection Nos.19-C/II of 2003.

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

F.A.O.No.3194 of 2002.

Cross Objection No.19-CII of 2003.

Date of decision:8.8.2006.

National Insurance Company Limited.

...Appellant.

Versus

Smt.Sheela Wanti and others.

...Respondents.

...

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. N. Aggarwal.

...

Present: Mr. R.M.Suri Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.Parveen Hans Advocate for the objector.

...

Judgment.

S.N.Aggarwal, J.

Both these proceedings arise out of the same judgment dated 27.9.2001 passed by the Commissioner, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Hisar and,therefore, are being disposed of by common order.

Kala alias Hans Raj (henceforth to be referred as Kala) was the son of Smt.Sheela Wanti and Narain Dass, respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Said Kala was working as a driver with Surender Kumar (respondent F.A.O.No.3194 of 2002 &

Cross-objection Nos.19-C/II of 2003.

No.3) in Tata 608, bearing registration No.HR-31-5367. The said vehicle was insured with National Insurance Company Limited (appellant). Said Kala died during the employment with respondent No.3 on which respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed claim petition against the owner (respondent No.3) and the insurer (appellant). It was stated in the claim petition that Kala was getting Rs.5,000/- per month as salary and both the claimants were dependent on him.

The petition was contested by the appellant and the owner of the offending vehicle.

The parties led the evidence.

The learned Commissioner came to the conclusion that Kala was earning Rs.2,000/- per month. Said Kala was 25 years of age at the time of accident. Therefore, the claimants (respondent Nos.1 and 2) were awarded a sum of Rs.2,16,910/- as compensation by the learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Hisar vide order dated 27.9.2001.

Hence, the present appeal.

The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the compensation awarded by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act is highly excessive. The claimants had themselves alleged that the monthly income of their son Kala was Rs.500/- per month. Reference was also made to the statement of Surender Kumar respondent who appeared as RW-1 and stated that he F.A.O.No.3194 of 2002 &

Cross-objection Nos.19-C/II of 2003.

used to pay Rs.1,000/- to Kala and,therefore, at the most the income of Kala was Rs.1,000/- per month. Therefore, the Commissioner should not have taken the income of Kala to be Rs.2,000/- per month.

This submission has been considered by me. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. claimants had not alleged that the income of their son Kala was Rs.500/- per month. There was a typographical mistake in one paragraph of the claim petition but in other portion of the claim petition, his income was stated to be Rs.5,000/- per month.

During the evidence, the claimants had stated the income of their son Kala to be Rs.5,000/- per month. Surender Kumar, respondent has also made oral statement that he used to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to Kala .

If it was so, Surender Kumar could have produced documentary evidence to rebut the oral evidence led by the claimants/respondents but that was not done. It means that respondent No.3 has with-held the best possible record in his possession to prove the income of Kala. I, therefore, find no legal infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner while determining the income of Kala to be Rs.2,000/- per month which is the reasonable income for a driver.

Since Kala was 25 years of age,therefore, the learned Commissioner has applied appropriate multiplier and determined proper compensation at Rs.2,16,910/-. The compensation awarded by the Commissioner, therefore, is not excessive.

As a result, this appeal is dismissed.

F.A.O.No.3194 of 2002 &

Cross-objection Nos.19-C/II of 2003.

The respondents/claimants also filed cross objections. They pray for the enhancement of the amount of compensation.

As discussed above, the respondents have not led any documentary evidence to show if Kala was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. Therefore, the income of Kala has been rightly determined by the learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Hence, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act is most reasonable and proper.

There is no merit in the cross-objections also. The same are dismissed.

August 8,2006. ( S. N. Aggarwal )

Jaggi Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.