AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Having heard the rival contentions, it transpires that the accident occurred on 10.3.2007 in which the truck driver Pratap Singh, aged 45 years, lost his life in such event while driving the truck no. UP-08-4675. Truck was insured with the National Insurance Company. So, his dependants including his wife and children presented the claim petition no. 9/2007 under Workmen''s Compensation Act before the competent authority claiming Rs. 5,43,400/- whereagainst amount of Rs. 3,94,120/- has been granted by the authority concerned vide impugned judgment and order dated 21.10.2009. Simple interest @ 12 per annum has also been awarded with effect from the date of accident.
Judgement under appeal has been challenged on two grounds. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the investigator of insurance company Mr. Rakesh Kukreti preferred a report under his signature revealing therein that after the verification of the record of driving licence, it was found that the licence of deceased Pratap Singh was last renewed w.e.f. 16.11.2000 to 15.11.2003, while this accident occurred after almost three and half years after the expiry of the validity of such licence.
All that can be said is that Mr. Rakeh Kukreit was never produced before the competent authority so that the other party could have opportunity to cross-examine him on the report so submitted by him nor any other respondent was examined. Therefore, mere filing of the report is not enough because it cannot be viewed adversely against the claimants until and unless they had opportunity to cross-examine such investigator on his report.
It has further been argued that under the Government Order No. 207(4)/VIII/228-Shram T.C.- 1/2001 dated 10.5.2005, the minimum wage for a skilled labour is marked as Rs. 3215/- per month, while the evaluation has been done on his monthly salary of Rs. 4,000/-.
On this score also, the Court is unable to agree with the contention of the appellant because Rs. 3215/- is the minimum rate of monthly payment. It is not always necessary that the evaluation should be done on the minimum rate. More so, when the income of the deceased driver has been proved by the claimants by producing themselves in the witness box.
On both the scores, I do not find any force in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed. The Money deposited and the interest accrued thereon shall be released in favour of the claimants as per their respective shares and without asking for any surety/security from them.
Let the LCR be sent back.