Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1198 (MP)

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD v. DAULAT SINGH

2007-11-20

N.K.MODY

body2007
Judgment ( 1. ) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 22. 12,2006 passed by Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Labour Court, Indore in case No. 24/03, whereby the application filed by the respondent No. 1 for compensation was allowed and a sum of Rs. 85,896 was awarded on account of injuries sustained by the respondent No. 1. the present appeal has been filed. ( 2. ) APPEAL is admitted on the following substantial question of law: (1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of case the findings of the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation that respondent No. 1 sustained injuries in the accident is perverse? ( 3. ) CASE is listed on the point of service report of respondent No. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that respondent No. 2 was ex-parte before the Court below. It is also submitted that the services of respondent No. 2 be dispensed with. Prayer is allowed. Services of respondent No. 2 are dispensed with at the risk of the appellant. Short facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition alleging that on 12. 7. 2002 respondent No. 1 was driving a jeep bearing registration No. MP. C9-S/2797, which was owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with the appellant. It was alleged that when the respondent No. 1 was driving the said vehicle and was coming from Badwah, at that time on Choral crossing the offending jeep turned down, when the respondent No. 1 tried in save a cow on the road and at that time respondent No. 1 sustained fracture in his right hand. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 was hospitalized at Indore Cloth Market Hospital, Indore from 18. 7. 2003 to 24. 7. 2003 when respondent No. 1 was operated and rod was inserted. In the claim petition it was prayed that a sum of Rs. 1,25,000 be awarded as compensation. ( 4. ) THE. claim petition was contested by the appellant on various grounds including on the ground that respondent No. 1 sustained no injuries in the alleged accident. It was also alleged that respondent No. 1 was not working with respondent No. 2 at the relevant time but was under the employment of one Mansingh Salvi, therefore, it was alleged that the claim petition itself is not maintainable. It was prayed that the claim petition be dismissed. ( 5. It was also alleged that respondent No. 1 was not working with respondent No. 2 at the relevant time but was under the employment of one Mansingh Salvi, therefore, it was alleged that the claim petition itself is not maintainable. It was prayed that the claim petition be dismissed. ( 5. ) AFTER framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Court below allowed the claim petition holding that respondent No. 1 sustained injuries in the motor accident and is entitled for compensation of Rs. 85,896. against which the present appeal has been filed. ( 6. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submits that learned Court below committed error in awarding the compensation. It is submitted that the accident is dated 12. 7. 2002, and no complaint was lodged immediately after the accident. It is submitted that on 16. 7. 2002 the intimation was given by the respondent No. 1 himself to police station Simrol District Indore. It is submitted that this document was filed by respondent No. 1 himself in which the respondent No. 1 has informed the police that the accident occurred at the time when respondent No. 1 was trying to save a cow. It is submitted that in the said complaint it has also been stated by respondent No. 1 that the offending jeep got damaged, but it is not stated in the said complaint that respondent No. 1 sustained any injuries Learned Counsel submits that this document has not at all taken into consideration by the learned Court below. It is also submitted that the accident is dated 12. 7. 2002 and immediately thereafter respondent No. 1 was examined by Dr. Surekha Arora and issued the prescription Ex. P/20, wherein it is stated that respondent No. 1 sustained injuries because of falling down from motor cycle Learned Counsel further submits that Ex. P/20 has also not been taken into consideration. Apart from this learned Counsel for appellant submits that at that time respondent No. 1 was under the employment of Mansingh Salvi and not in the employment of respondent No. 2, therefore, learned Court below committee error in holding the appellant liable for payment of compensation. ( 7. ) MR. JM. Poonegar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that after, due appreciation of evidence learned Court below has come to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 sustained injuries in motor accident. ( 7. ) MR. JM. Poonegar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that after, due appreciation of evidence learned Court below has come to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 sustained injuries in motor accident. It is submitted that the findings of the learned Court below is a findings of fact and cannot be challenged in this appeal. ( 8. ) FROM perusal of the record it appears that learned Court below has not taken into consideration two important circumstances, which is the intimation given by the respondent No. 1 himself to police station Simrol, District Indore, in which respondent No. 1 has not stated that respondent No. 1 sustained injuries No explanation has been given by respondent No. 1 that what was the reason for not informing the police about the injuries sustained by the respondent No. 1, Apart from this Ex. P/20, which has been issued by Dr. Surekha Arora in which it has been stated that the respondent No. 1 sustained injuries because of falling down from motor cycle. This document also has not been taken into consideration by the learned Court below while passing the impugned order, hence the findings of learned Court below without taking into consideration the material evidence which was on record, therefore, in the opinion of this Court the findings of the learned Court below is perverse and deserves to be set aside. ( 9. ) IN view of this, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and case is remanded back to learned Court below to pass the order after taking into consideration all the material on record. Parties are directed to remain present before the learned Court below on 2nd January, 2008. No order as to costs. Appeal Allowed.