Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 159 (RAJ)

Baje @ Bajesingh v. Ayub Karim

2009-01-19

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2009
Hon'ble KEMKAR, J.—This appeal is directed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act ( for short the Act) against the order dated 21.8.2002 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Labour Court Dewas,( for short the Commissioner) in Case No. 6/WCNF/2001. 2. The appellant claimant filed a claim petition under Section 10 of the Act (for short Act) seeking compensation from the respondents for injury resulted in amputation of his left hand below elbow sustained on 27.3.2000 by him arising out of and during the course of his employment. According to the claim petition, the appellant while working as Labourer on Thresher Machine of respondents sustained grevious injuries and as a result of which, his left hand below elbow was amputated. He, therefore, claimed compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- with penalty from the respondents. 3. The respondents resisted the claim petition and stated that the appellant was employed as a Chowkidar and he was not supposed to work on the Thresher. According to them, the appellant claimant was performing the work of others when the accident occurred and as such, they are not liable to pay compensation. 4. The learned Commissioner framed six issues and after recording evidence dismissed the claim petition holding that though the appellant was in the employment of the respondents, but was appointed as Chowkidar and he was not employed to work on Thresher and as such, if any injury has been caused to him while unauthorisedly working on Thresher, the respondents cannot be made liable to compensate the appellant. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition, the appellant has filed this appeal. 6. According to the appellant, he was working as an Labourer with the respondents. He was working on Thresher machine of the respondents on their instructions and as such, the finding recorded by the Commissioner is contrary to the evidence on record. 7. The respondents argued that the finding recorded by the Commissioner being based on correct appreciation of evidence, it needs no interference. 8. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Appellant Bajusingh (PW-1) stated that on 27.3.2000 at about 2 pm he was working on the Thresher machine of the respondents. At that time his hand came under the Thresher machine and he suffered grievous injury to his hand. He was taken to Hospital at Dewas by Gopal and Manoharsingh. 9. Appellant Bajusingh (PW-1) stated that on 27.3.2000 at about 2 pm he was working on the Thresher machine of the respondents. At that time his hand came under the Thresher machine and he suffered grievous injury to his hand. He was taken to Hospital at Dewas by Gopal and Manoharsingh. In the Hospital during treatment his hand was amputated below elbow. He made a categorical statement that he was working as a Labourer of the respondents and was doing various agricultural activities including working on Thresher machine of the respondents on their farm. Gopal (PW-2) supported the version of the appellant claimant. In rebuttal respondent No.1 Abdul Karim examined himself as (DW4 1) . According to him appellant was working as Chowkidar at his agricultural land. He stated that his agricultural land was being supervised by his brother-in-law Abdul Rauf who was getting the agricultural work on the said farm performed through Labourers. 10. Having regard to the aforesaid evidence it is revealed that though the respondents have taken a plea that the appellant was not working as a Labourer but was working as a Chowkidar on their farm and the work of Labourer was being done by the Labourers engaged by his brother-in-law Abdul Rauf but neither the said Abdul Rauf has been examined as a witness nor any independent witness has been examined to support the said defence. The respondents could have easily produced those Labourers which according to them were working on their farm. In the absence of any independent evidence in support of the defence taken by the respondents, the appellants version that he was engaged as Labourer and not Chowkidar and was working on the respondents Thresher on their instructions, deserves to be accepted. 11. In view of the aforesaid evidence available on record, in my considered view the finding recorded by the Commissioner that the appellant was not employed by them to work as a Labourer but was employed as a Chowkidar, cannot be sustained. The appellant having proved his version that he was working as a Labourer on the respondents farm and Thresher, the injuries sustained by him were certainly caused to him by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. 12. In the circumstances, the appeal deserves to be and is, hereby, allowed. The matter is remanded to the learned Commissioner for deciding the other issues. 12. In the circumstances, the appeal deserves to be and is, hereby, allowed. The matter is remanded to the learned Commissioner for deciding the other issues. Parties to appear before the learned Commissioner on 17.2.2009. No orders as to the costs.