Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 102 (RAJ)

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited v. Murari Lal

2010-01-13

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2010
Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—Aggrieved by the award dated 23.12.2005, passed by the learned Workman Compensation Commissioner, District Dausa, whereby the learned Commissioner has granted a compensation of Rs.1,36,979/- to the claimant-respondent for the injuries suffered by him while discharging his duty, the appellants, who are the employers, have approached this Court. 2. Shortly the facts of the case are that on 6.12.1997, when the claimant-respondent was working as helper in Sub-Station Baswa under the employment of the appellants, on account of electric current, he sustained certain injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition before the learned Commissioner. The appellants filed a detailed reply to the claim petition and denied the averments made therein. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the learned Commissioner framed three issues. After hearing both the parties, vide award dated 23.12.2005, the learned Commissioner allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court. 3. Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellants, has vehemently contended that the learned Commissioner has failed to notice the fact that the claim petition was filed beyond the period of limitation and no justifiable reason was given by him. Secondly, there was no negligence on the part of the appellants which resulted in the injuries suffered by the claimant-respondent. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned award. 5. Both the contentions raised by the learned counsel are unacceptable for the following reasons : firstly, the contention with regard to the limitation was not even raised before the learned Commissioner. Therefore, the new plea cannot be raised, that too based on the facts, before this Court. Secondly, the learned Commissioner has meticulously examined the evidence and has come to the conclusion that the negligence lays on the part of the appellants. 6. Thus, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal is devoid of any merit. It is, ereby, dismissed.