- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the award dated 19.7.2006 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Hazaribagh in W.C. Case No. 30 of 2004 (Claim) allowing a compensation of Rs. 2,29,144/ - to the legal representatives of the deceased, who had been employed to drive the vehicle belonging to the respondent No. 6, Ishwar Singh.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY , the deceased driver died during he course of driving the vehicle owned by the respondent No. 6, Ishwar Singh, due to sudden collapse of the roof while he was taking rest outside the Line Hotel. The truck which was driven by the deceased was also admittedly insured with the appellant, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Hazaribagh and hence the Court below was pleased to determine the compensation payable to the legal representatives of the deceased to the extent of Rs. 2.29,144/ -. Since the vehicle was insured with the appellant -Insurance Company, the amount of compensation was ordered to be paid by the Insurance Company, but the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal, assailing the award. Learned Counsel for the appellant -Insurance Company has submitted that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the legal representative of the deceased as the owner of the vehicle had been paying premium for one driver only. - - Initially, it was difficult to comprehend this argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant as the incident resulted into the death of only one driver who was employed by the owner of the vehicle and, therefore, it was difficult to appreciate as to how the Insurance Company can feel aggrieved that it is not liable to pay compensation to two drivers as premium has been paid only for one driver. Finally, it could be understood that the Insurance Company is anxious that in future if any accident takes place then the Insurance Company might have to pay compensation to another driver also. This argument advanced by the counsel is completely weird as the compensation is payable on account of the fact that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and to imagine that in future also it might have to pay to another driver is clearly hypothetical, which has no legal basis. Hence, we find no substance in this contention at all.
(3.) IN sofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, learned Counsel has rightly not raised any argument against the same, since the quantum of compensation cannot be held to be exorbitant in any manner.;