- (1.) The Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Hisar, vide impugned order dated 5.3.2012, granted compensation to the tune of Rs.7,02,017/- to Chander Kala for the death of her son. She came up in appeal for enhancement and grant of penalty, while the Insurance Company filed the other appeal for dismissal of the claim and if not, for reduction of the amount of compensation and interest.
(2.) Learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the employment of the deceased under Rajinder Singh Choudhry was not proved. The said respondent was ex parte before the court below and the claimant did not lead any evidence regarding the employment. The deceased was stated to be a driver with Rajinder Singh Choudhry on truck No.KA-01A-755. Learned counsel for the claimant argued that even if the employer had appeared before the Commissioner, he would not have admitted the employment.
(3.) So far as the proof of employment is concerned, Chander Kala appeared as PW1 and stated that her son was employed by Rajinder Singh Choudhry as driver on the truck owned by him. She gave the number of the vehicle and said that her son was getting Rs.4000/- per month. In her cross examination, she said that the salary was paid by the employer by hand in cash and there was no record about it. A suggestion was put to him that the deceased was not employed as alleged and that his salary was not Rs.4000/- per month, which was denied. No evidence to the contrary was led. Ram Sawrup, PW2, maternal uncle of the deceased also deposed on the same lines as the claimant. It was not suggested to him that nephew was not employed by Rajinder Singh Choudhry and his salary was not Rs.4000/- per month. That part of the statement of Ram Sawrup went unscathed and unchallenged, which would amount to admission.;