Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS civil misc. appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1923') has been filed against the order dated 23.03.2011, passed by the Commissioner, Workman's Compensation Act, Jaipur District -II (hereinafter 'the Commissioner'), wherein the claim petition filed by the respondents -claimants (hereinafter 'the claimants') was allowed to an extent of Rs. 3,94,120/ - along with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of the accident in issue i.e. 11.05.2009 till the date of payment.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the claimants filed a claim petition under the Act of 1923 seeking compensation for the death of Bajrang Lal, husband of claimant No. 1, father of claimant No. 2 and son of claimant No. 3. It was stated that the deceased Bajrang Lal was employed as "Khalasi" on bus No. RJ -28 -PA -0072 which was insured with the appellant -Insurance Company (hereinafter 'the Insurance Company'). On 11.05.2009, when the deceased Bajrang Lal was on duty as "Khalasi" on the aforesaid vehicle, he went to the roof of the bus to bring down certain wooden pieces kept on the carrier thereof. Accidentally he touched overhead electric wires and died of the resultant severe electricity shock. The incident was entered into Rojanamcha of the concerned police station. It was stated that Bajrang Lal was 25 years old at the time of his death and was earning a sum of Rs. 6,500/ - p.m. Compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs was thereupon claimed. The owner of the insured vehicle as detailed hereinabove one Omprakash Tiwari with whom deceased Bajrang Lal was employed as per claim petition remained ex -parte in spite of service. The Insurance Company however filed a detailed written statement stating therein that the claim petition was not maintainable in view of the insured being in breach of the conditions of the policy under which the bus was insured inasmuch as the bus was being plied without a valid permit and further that the driver of the said bus did not have a valid driving licence. It was also stated that deceased Bajrang Lal was not in regular employment of the insured bus owner and therefore did not partake the character of his employee under the Act of 1923. The further defence of the Insurance Company was that the deceased, as per the report obtained following the accident from its own private investigator, was at the time of the accident inebriated consequent to which the liability of the employer and by extension the insurer under the Act of 1923 was excluded.
(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Commissioner framed five issues. Broadly stated they pertained to the question as to whether deceased Bajrang Lal on the date of his death i.e. 11.05.2009 was engaged as "Khalasi" on the insured bus bearing No. RJ -28 -PA -0072; whether the deceased was in the employment of the insured and died in the course of his employment carrying out the instructions given to him; what was the effect of the objections taken by the Insurance Company to the maintainability of the claim petition; whether the claimants were entitled for the compensation as claimed and if yes, to whom and how much; and finally the relief.;