R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 08.06.2010, passed by the Workman Compensation Commissioner, Sikar, whereby the learned Commissioner has awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,36,000/ - to the claimants, the appellant -Insurance Company has approached this Court.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the claimant -respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had filed a claim petition under the Workman Compensation Act, 1923 (presently called "The Employees Compensation Act, 1923) (for short "the Act") before the learned Commissioner. According to the claimants, Kailash Chand was the husband of respondent No. 1, Smt. Chhoti Devi and he was a driver of Auto Taxi No. RJ -23 -P -A -0449. While he was driving the said Taxi, on 20.10.2006 the taxi turned turtle. Consequently, Kailash Chand died on the spot. At the time of his death, Kailash Chand was twenty years old and was earning Rs. 4,000/ - per month. The Taxi was insured with the appellant -Insurance Company. The Insurances Company filed its reply and specifically raised the objection that the deceased did not come within the definition of workman as defined in the Act as the deceased himself was the owner of the taxi. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Commissioner framed six issues. In order to buttress their case, the claimants examined two witnesses and submitted few documents. On the other hand, the Insurance Company also examined two witnesses, but did not submit any document. After hearing both the parties, as mentioned above, the learned Commissioner passed the award. Hence, this appeal before this Court. Mr. Vinay Mathur, the learned Counsel for the claimants -respondents, has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the present appeal before this Court. According to the learned Counsel, according to Section 30 of the Act, before an appeal can be filed, the Insurance Company is required to deposit the entire compensation amount including the interest before the learned Commissioner. However, in the present case, the Insurance Company has failed to deposit the entire amount including the interest. Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable. In order to buttress this contention, the learned Counsel has relied upon the case of State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Smt. Rukma Devi MACD 07, (2) (Raj.) 1211.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Raaj Pal Chaudhary, the learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company, has argued that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the interest amount, but is liable to pay only the principal sum to the claimant. The Insurance Company would be liable to pay the interest amount only if the said condition is contained in the insurance policy. However, in the present case, no such condition was contained in the insurance policy. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to deposit the interest amount prior to filing of the appeal. In the alternative, the learned Counsel has requested that the time should be given to the Insurance Company to deposit the interest amount.;