Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1385 (RAJ)

Ramphool v. Shri Siyaram

2012-05-28

PREM SHANKER ASOPA

body2012
ASOPA, J.—Heard learned counsel for the claimant-appellant. 2. By this Misc. Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (now Employee's Compensation Act, 1923) the claimant appellant has challenged the order dated 22nd April, 1999 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Sawai Madhopur whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellant claiming compensation of Rs.79,618/- has been dismissed. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the claimant appellant filed a claim petition before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Sawai Madhopur claiming compensation of Rs.79,618/- against the non-claimants respondent Prahlad and Thandi Ram with the averments that he was employed with the said respondents on their thrasher attached to tractor bearing registration number RJ-21IR-6309 used for cutting fodder. It was further averred that he was employed @ Rs.50/- per day. On 18th April, 1993 during the course of employment of the respondents he sustained grievous injury in the left hand as a result of which paw of the same was amputated. Therefore, the claimant filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.79,618/-. The non-claimant Siya Ram did not file any reply and the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner proceeded ex parte against him. 4. Non-claimants Prahlad and Thandi Ram have denied the fact of employment of the claimant with them and further submitted that they have no tractor therefore, the fact regarding fixing of thrasher on the tractor becomes false averment. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :- (1) Whether, the claimant met with an accident during the course of employment with the non-claimant? (2) Whether, at the time of the accident, the claimant was of 35 years of age? (3) Whether, the wages of the claimant were Rs.1500/- per month? (4) Relief? 6. In support of his claim, the claimant produced copy of the injury report (Ex.1), copy of the FIR (Ex.2), judgment of Adl. Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Karauli (Ex.3) and discharge certificate (Ex.4). 7. The claimant examined himself as PW.3 and also examined Dhan Singh Meena (PW.1) and Shri Saroopa (brother of claimant) (PW.2). From the side of the non-claimants, two witnesses namely; Gulab son of Heera and the non-claimant Prahlad himself were examined. 8. Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Karauli (Ex.3) and discharge certificate (Ex.4). 7. The claimant examined himself as PW.3 and also examined Dhan Singh Meena (PW.1) and Shri Saroopa (brother of claimant) (PW.2). From the side of the non-claimants, two witnesses namely; Gulab son of Heera and the non-claimant Prahlad himself were examined. 8. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has considered the fact that in the FIR, no final investigation report was given and further in the criminal case, registered on the complaint of the claimant finally decided by the Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Karauli (Ex.3) on 19th December, 1995 it does not reveal that the claimant was employed with the non-claimants and after considering the documentary and oral evidence on record issue no.1 was decided against the claimant-appellant by giving the finding that the claimant appellant failed to prove the fact that the accident was occurred on 18th April, 1993 during the course of employment with the non-claimant no.2, therefore, the claim petition was rejected without giving finding on other issues. 9. Submission of counsel for the claimant-appellant is that the claimant appellant was employed with non-claimant respondent no.2 and has not pressed his claim against non-claimant respondent no.3 on account of his death and the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has committed error in not appreciating the oral as well as the documentary evidence available on record on issue no.1 and in recording its finding on the same. 10. I have gone through the record of the appeal and further consi-dered the aforesaid submission of counsel for the claimant-appellant. 11. Having gone through the judgment of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, I am of the view that the Commissioner has committed no error in giving the finding on the basis of evidence produced before him that the alleged occurrence dated 18th April, 1993 has not taken place while the claimant appellant was working in the employment of non-claimant respondent no.2. Since, the claimant-appellant has failed to prove issue no.1, the other issues were rightly not decided. The said finding on issue no.1 is a finding of fact and no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, the same deserves to be dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is, dismissed.