P.K.LOHRA, J. - (1.) THESE two cross appeals under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1923') are arising out of the same impugned order, and therefore, both these appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) CIVIL Misc. Appeal No.5 of 1999 is preferred by the insurance company against the impugned order for assailing the part of the order of the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner (for short, 'learned Commissioner'), whereby liability to pay compensation is fastened on it whereas Appeal No.751 of 1998 is laid by the appellant claimants for awarding penalty to the tune of Rs.3 lacs against the insurance company. The brief facts, giving rise to these appeals, are that respondent No.1 & 2 laid a joint petition under Section 22 of the Act of 1923 claiming compensation against the third respondent and the appellant Insurance Company quantifying the amount of compensation to the tune of Rupees three lacs with interest and penalty amounting to 50% of the claim. In the claim petition, it was inter alia averred by the respondent claimants that their son Lakhma Ram was in employment of third respondent as Khalasi and on the fateful day of 9th June 1996, when he was discharging his duties as Khalasi on truck No.RJT 5336, which was driven by the third respondent himself, due to rash and negligent driving of the truck, Lakhma Ram fell down and suffered grave and serious injuries resulting in his death. The respondent claimants have very specifically pleaded in the claim petition that cause of death of their son Lakhma Ram was due to an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, and it was further asserted in the claim petition that at the time of death the victim Lakhma Ram was 21 years old. Alleging pertinently in the claim petition that as Khalasi Lakhma Ram was getting salary at the rate of Rs.1500/ per month with allowance of Rs.20/ per day, the respondent claimants have worked out the total amount of compensation aforesaid.
(3.) THE appellant Insurance Company was also impleaded as party because at the time of accident the truck was insured with the Insurance Company.;