JUDGMENT A.K. Yog, J.
1. Heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant, National Insurance Company Ltd. as well as Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Owner of the vehicle Mohd. Nasir impleaded as proforma respondent No. 3 who is not served. As agreed by the aforesaid Counsel and that the judgment (which we propose to pass will not adversely affect Mohd. Nasir/respondent No. 2 in any manner) and further considering interest of the claimant Nos. 1 and 2 we proceed to decide present F.A.F.O. finally.
2. This first appeal from order arises from Workmen's Compensation Claim Petition No. 8 of 2003 filed by Tola and another, claiming to be father and mother of one deceased Sawabul in an accident while employed as cleaner on the vehicle owned by Mohd. Nasir/respondent No. 3. The (vehicle on which the deceased was discharging duties as cleaner) got stuck in 'Malan' River at Kotdwar and Sawabul died because of high water current.
3. Parties contested the claim petition by leading evidence as they desired. Workmen's Compensation Commissioner vide judgment and order dated 30.6.2003 allowed the aforesaid compensation petition directing the Insurance Company/appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 4,99,900/- as well as 9% per annum simple interest (from the date of accident namely 31.7.2003 till the date of deposit) within 30 days of the award and further directed Mohd. Nasir (owner of the vehicle in question/respondent No. 3 before us) to pay a sum of Rs. 2,49,950/-, being 50% of the total compensation amount as penalty; to be deposited within 30 days of the award.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the present first appeal from order raised substantial question of law namely-
Whether Workmen's Compensation Commissioner was justified in deciding the case without recording categorical finding regarding status of the claimants as being heirs/representatives and/or dependents upon deceased in question?'
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant also pointed out that multiplier of 21.9.1995 should have been applied considering the age of the deceased which Workmen's Compensation Commissioner held to be 23 years. In the impugned award, Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has, however, applied multiplier of 249.95. Learned Counsel for the appellant placed before us Schedule IV under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (as amended up-to-date) wherein there is no multiplier of 249.95. Age of 23 years attracts multiplier of 219.95. Learned Counsel for the respondents, however, concedes that the mistake is inadvertent/clerical in nature and deserves to be corrected.
6. As far as first question, raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant regarding heirs of the deceased, is concerned, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has dealt the said question under Issue No. 2. The Commissioner has observed that claimants were legal heirs dependent upon the deceased as was evident from the record available before him, written statement as well as documentary evidence on record. The Commissioner, in his discussion on Issue No. 2, however, still directed the claimants to prove their status as 'heirs/representatives dependent upon the deceased' by filing concerned certificates oh record before receiving compensation.
7. It is, therefore, clear that Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has not recorded clear finding on Issue No. 2.
8. In our opinion, even in the first part of the discussion, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has not referred to any particular pleadings or documents on record whereupon he held that the claimants were the legal representatives and dependent upon the deceased.
9. In view of the above we are of the considered opinion that Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has failed to record finding which is necessary and relevant to decide the petition. The case could not have been and should not have been decided unless status of the claimants was determined in accordance with law.
10. Secondly the mistake in applying multiplier of 249.95 is admitted to the learned Counsel for the parties and also requires correction in the light of the observations made above.
11. In view of the above we set aside the judgment and order dated 30.6.2003 passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Moradabad.
12. The First Appeal from Order No. 2400 of 2004 against the aforesaid award is hereby allowed with direction to the concerned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner to decide the Workmen's Compensation Petition No. 8 of 2003 afresh in accordance with law after hearing all the parties, keeping in view observations made above, within four months of the receipt of the judgment.