Rajesh Tandon, J.
1. Heard Sri Tanveer Alam Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This is an appeal against the judgment and award dated 13.10.2004, passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Chamoli in W.C.C. No. 9 of 2002/2003, Smt. Sudesh Kaur v. New India Assurance Company Limited and Anr.
3. Briefly stated, Smt. Kusumlata, wife of Basudev Singh, R/o Village Jhirkoti, Patwari Circle-Gauchar, Tehsil-Karanaprayag, district Chamoll filed an application on 4th July, 2003, for grant of compensation with the allegations that on 23rd December, 2002 at about 6-7 p.m. accident had taken place of the jeep, which was being driven by Basudev Singh due to which Basudev Singh died on the spot. At the time of accident, he was aged about 27 years and was getting a salary of Rs. 3,000 per month and a sum of Rs. 50 per day for fooding and lodging. The claimant has claimed a sum of Rs. 8,30,000 as compensation.
4. The written statement was filed on behalf of the New India Assurance Company denying averments made in the petition and it was stated that the deceased Basudev Singh was the owner of the Jeep No. U.P. 08-5216 on the date of accident, which he had purchased from respondent No. 2 Kamal Singh. Therefore, the claim petition under Workmen Compensation Act is not maintainable.
5. The claim petition was resisted only on the ground that the deceased, who was driving the vehicle, was owner of the vehicle in question and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation as there is no relationship of employee and employer.
6. Sri Kamal Singh, respondent No. 2 has also filed a -written statement, who was arrayed as defendant No. 2 in the claim petition. In paragraph 6 of the written statement, it has been stated by Sri Kamal Singh to the following effect:
^^6- fd izkFkhZuh ds izkFkZuki= dk izLrj u- 6xyr gS vkSj izfroknh e`rd dks 2000&00 :i;s izfrekg osru nsrk Fkk vkSj [kkuk[kpkZ vyx ls nsrk FkkA**
7. As will appear from the aforesaid paragraph 6 that the deceased was getting a sum of Rs. 2,000 per month from his employer Kamal Singh.
8. In the additional written statement, it has, further, been stated that the husband of the deponent namely Sri Basudev Singh was driving the Vehicle No. U.P. 08-5216, who was the owner of the said vehicle, met with an accident and died on the spot.
9. Further it has been stated that the vehicle was insured with the appellant New India Assurance Company. Paragraph 8, which narrates the entire incident is quoted below :
^^fd vly fdLlk ;g gS fd izkfFkZuh dk ifr e`rdclqnso flag thi la- ;w- ih-&01&5216 ij M~kbZoj Fkk vkSj izfoknh ua- 2mDr okgu dk iathd`r ekfyd gS e`rd M~kbZoj clqnso flag fnukad 23-12-2002 dks le;djhcu 6&7 cts lk;a LFkku irky xa;k Fkkuk tks'kheB esa mDr thi nq?kZVukxzLrgks x;h ftlesa M~kbZoj dh ekSds ij gh e`R;q gks x;h FkhA e`rd M~kbZoj ,d vuqHkohM~kbZoj Fkk mlds ikl oS/k ykblsal Fkk e`rd clqnso falag dks 2000&00 :i;kizfrekg osru ,oa [kkuk Hkkk vyx ls fn;k tkrk FkkA**
10. Sri Kamal Singh respondent No. 2 has filed the licence of Basudev Singh the deceased issued by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Add.) Rishikesh Uttaranchal.
11. Kamal Singh respondent No. 2 has also filed Contract Carriage Permit Certificate issued with Registration No. U. P. 08/5216 with the vehicle in question.
12. On the relevant date, when the accident took place, i.e., on 23rd December, 2002, the permit was in operation as was issued from 4th July, 1998 to 3rd July, 2003. The Claims Tribunal has framed as many as six issues.
13. While deciding the issue No. 1, a finding was recorded that the accident had taken place on 23rd December, 2002, in the written statement as it has come in the evidence that the deceased was only a driver and the vehicle belonged to Kamal Singh defendant No. 2.
14. Even the statement of Kamal Singh, respondent No. 2 has proved that he was the owner of the Jeep in question and on this question nothing was cross-examined. He appeared as D.W. 1.
15. Even in the cross-examination, the statement of Kamal Singh remained the same. The statement is quoted below :
^^chek doj uksV esa ekQZr~ chek/kkjh dk uke deyflag ekQZr~ cklqnso flag xzke pVqokihiy iksLV 'kkfUrlnu ftyk xkSpj fy[kk gSeSaus oklqnso flag M~kbZoj dks chek ds fy, Hkstk Fkk ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSa okgudk Lokeh gwa u fd cklqnso flag gS ;g dguk xyr gS fd oklqnso okgu Loeh gS blfy,chek dEiuh {kfriwfrZ nsus ds fy, ftEesnkj u gksA [kqn dgk fd okgu Lokeh eSa gwaA**
16. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity while deciding the issue No. 1 that on 23rd December, 2002, the Jeep met with an accident of which Sri Kamal Singh was the owner and the deceased was driving and he was in the employment of Sri Kamal Singh.
17. Issue No. 2 relates to the fact as to whether the driver has a valid driving licence, this finding has also been decided in favour of the claimants and there is evidence on the record. We have perused the evidence on the record regarding validity of the driving licence of the deceased etc.
18. Issue No. 3 relates to the fact as to what was the amount, which deceased Basudev Singh was getting. In his statement, he has stated that he was getting a sum of Rs. 3,000 per month, whereas Sri Kamal Singh in his written statement has stated that he was paying a sum of Rs. 2,000 per month to the employee concerned apart from the fooding and lodging. The Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that the deceased was getting a sum of Rs. 2,550 as a monthly salary.
19. Taking into consideration the monthly salary of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 2,70,032 as compensation as the deceased was aged about 28 years at the time of accident.
20. Taking into consideration, the age of the deceased as 28 years according to Schedule 4 under Section 4 the factor comes to 211.79.
21. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal needs no interference. However, we modify the order by reducing the interest part to the extent of 6% (six per cent) and the rest part of the order is confirmed.
22. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed.