- (1.) Heard learned counsel for both the parties. First writ petition has been filed by the Insurance Company and the second writ petition by the vehicle owners. Mohd. Ishaq and his wife Smt. Jahida Bano instituted Case No. 95/W.C.A. of 2002 against Aqeel Khan, Rasheed Khan and Jameel Khan sons of Tauqee Khan owners of the vehicle and United India Insurance Company the insurer of the vehicle before Workmen Compensation Commissioner/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bareilly. It was stated in the claim petition that claimants' son Mohd. Iqbal was driver on a truck belonging to opposite parties 1 to 3 (petitioners in the second writ petition) and in an accident of the truck he died on 18.5.2002. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner allowed the claim through order dated 31.3.2003 and directed the owners to pay Rs. 3,44,855/- to the claimants. Through the said order Insurance Company was not made liable for the reason that even though it was admitted by it that the truck was insured with it however, the insurance was in the name of Tauqee Khan father of opposite parties 1 to 3 the owners of the truck. In-fact Tauqee Khan had died before the accident and it was for this reason that his sons became owners of the truck. The point was so obvious that opposite parties 1 to 3 in the claim petition did not specifically state that their father had died.
(2.) Thereafter opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 petitioners in the second writ petition and owners of the truck filed review petition. The review petition was allowed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner through order dated 29.5.2004 and it was directed that the awarded amount of Rs. 3.44 lacs and odd should be paid by the Insurance Company. It was further directed that the owners should pay penalty at the rate of Rs. 35,000/- per year for three years (total Rs. 1.05 lacs).
(3.) These writ petitions have been filed challenging the orders passed on the review petition. The argument of learned counsel for the Insurance Company-petitioner in the first writ petition is that Workmen Compensation Commissioner has got no power to review and the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners in the second writ petition is that review petition had been filed by them hence they could not be saddled with the liability to pay penalty as the claimants had not filed any review.;