INDERJEET SINGH,J. - (1.) Heard on admission of the appeal.
(2.) The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 24.10.2007 passed by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Sikar in Case No. WC/F/6/2007.
(3.) Brief facts of the case are that the claimant-respondent No.1 to 4 filed claim application before the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Sikar against the appellant and respondent No.5 and 6 under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,85,000/- along with interest on account of the alleged death of Lakhvinder Singh @ Lakhi on 17.12.2006. When he was deployed as driver on Truck No.HR-38A-7915 under the employment of respondent No.5 and when he was going from Chandigarh to Raipur along with the truck in the way under the territorial jurisdiction of Jhinjhana (U.P.) Police Station, when he was cleaning the glass of the truck by parking it by side of the road another vehicle collided with the truck of the deceased. As a result of which he sustained injuries and ultimately died. It was also pleaded that the claimants are originally residing of Salempura Sekha, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala (Punjab) and now, they are living in Sikar. Lastly, they prayed for awarding the compensation. The appellant-insurance company filed its reply and denied the averments of the claim petition and pleaded that the learned Commissioner has got no jurisdiction to entertain the claim application, the relationship of employee and employer is not proved and violation of policy conditions of insurance policy were also pleaded lastly prayed for dismissal of the claim application. The appellant has mainly argued that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the claim petition as admittedly the claimants were originally resident of village Salempura Sekha, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala (Punjab) whereas the claim application has been filed at Sikar. Counsel further submits that the Commissioner has wrongly awarded the interest from the date of accident whereas the same should have been awarded from the date of award. Violation of policy conditions were also argued.;