- (1.) This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (now renamed Employee's Compensation Act, 1923) ('the Act') has been preferred by the appellant Insurance Company aggrieved by order dated 21.01.1999 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Jodhpur ('the Commissioner), whereby, the Commissioner awarded compensation to the extent of Rs.89,084/- with interest @ 6% from 06.01.1995 to the date of deposit and the appellant Insurance Company is held liable for payment of the said compensation.
(2.) The facts of the case are that claimants V.K. Gopala Krishna Pillai and Smt. Thulast G Pillai, parents of G. Babu filed an application for compensation before the Commissioner, inter alia, with the averments that their son G. Babu, a workman, employed by respondent M/s Ray Constructions suffered personal injuries by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, due to which, he expired on 06.03.1994. The deceased was aged 21 years and 10 months and his monthly wages was Rs.1200/-. A claim of Rs.1,06,900/- with interest and penalty was made.
(3.) The application was replied by the appellant Insurance Company with the averments that though it was correct that workman G. Babu met with an accident, but the same did not happen during the course of employment or out of employment and, therefore, under the provisions of the Act no compensation was payable. It was stated that workman G. Babu was going to the hospital on a motor cycle and, when the said accident happened, he was neither working out of employment or during the course of employment; he was going to the hospital for his checkup and the accident occurred at 09:15 PM by then he was not on duty; three persons were riding on the motor cycle, which is against the provisions of law. It was further stated that the employer had got insured only few supervisors and not all supervisors and at the time of survey 11 site supervisors were appointed and there was insurance of only 2 supervisors and, therefore, the said insurance coverage was against the provisions of tariff.;