Alok Singh, J
1. The facts and questions of law in both the appeals are common, therefore, all the appeals are taken up together and disposed of by this common
judgment.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 31.01.2008, Shrawan Kumar, husband of Reena Devi, and Naresh, husband of Surbeena Devi, driver
and cleaner of truck bearing registration no. HR 38 F 7947 respectively went to Modinagar, Ghaziabad from Khatima in aforesaid for making delivery
of subastas soil. On the way, some unknown persons looted the truck and killed Shrawan Kumar and Naresh Kumar and thrown their body on
Kundarki Deengarpur road; one Ashraf lodged an FIR to the effect that two dead bodies are lying in his field; police registered the case; police
published photograph of dead bodies in Amar Ujala paper; identifying the dead bodies of Shrawan Kumar and Naresh Kumar, owner of the truck
Giridhar Singh approached police station Kunderki, Moradabad on 05.02.2008 and made a complaint that two dead bodies recovered from the field of
Ashraf were his driver and cleaner; his truck was standing on near Kohinoor trijunction and three tyres, gearbox, battery etc. were missing. After
receiving information about death of Shrawan Kumar and Naresh, their wives have filed claim petition for compensation. Workmen’s
Compensation Commissioner, / Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kumaon Region, Haldwani allowed the claim petitions against Insurance Company.
Feeling aggrieved, Insurance Company approached this Court.
3. Heard Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the appellant / Insurance Company, Mr. D.K. Bisht, Advocate for the claimant and perused the record.
4. Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the appellant submits that without identification of dead bodies compensation was granted; there is no proof of
income of deceased and claimants have failed to prove employment.
5. So far as first argument is concerned, though it has come on record that wives had not seen the dead body but they had identified the belongings of
their husbands which were collected by the police officials before cremation. More so, dead bodies were identified by owner of truck Giridhar Singh,
therefore, it cannot be said that dead persons were not husband of claimants wives.
6. So far as, second and third argument is concerned, in my opinion, they have no force because Compensation Commissioner has granted
compensation on the basis of minimum wage prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act. Owner of truck Giridhar Singh himself stated that Shrawan
Kumar and Naresh were working him as Driver and Cleaner. Therefore, in my opinion, nothing more is required to establish employment.
7. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality, perversity or incongruity in the impugned judgments. Accordingly, both the appeals fail and are
hereby dismissed.
8. Let copy of this judgment be placed in connected appeal and lower court record be sent back.
