Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 267 (TRI)

Sandhya Das v. Jagannath Paul

2014-07-09

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, CJ. 1. This appeal by the claimant petitioner under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is directed against the award, dated 24.05.2007, passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (W.C.)20 of 1997 whereby he dismissed the petition for grant of compensation under Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 2. This appeal was admitted on 17.08.2007 but at the time of admission no substantial question of law was framed. However, since this is an appeal filed by the claimant where the claim of the petitioner has been rejected, I have gone through the entire record to satisfy myself about the correctness and legality of the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 3. The petitioner Smt. Sandhya Das is the widow of Late Harish Ch Das. She filed a petition before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation on 27.05.1997 alleging that her husband Harish Ch. Das was employed as a labourer in truck No. TRL-3996 for the purpose of loading and unloading wooden logs in the truck. She alleged that the truck was owned by one Sri Jagannath Paul. According to her, on 31.03.1996 when her husband was engaged in his work of loading the logs in the truck one of the wooden logs fell from the truck on her husband, as a result of which he sustained serious injuries and died at the Gandacherra hospital after some time. 4. The respondent Jagannath Paul was served and was proceeded against ex parte. Thereafter the statement of the wife was recorded and on 07.09.1999 the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation allowed the petition and granted compensation of Rs. 1,69,440/- along with interest. Thereafter, the respondents filed an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings and these ex parte proceedings were set aside in Civil Miscellaneous Petition 240 of 1999 decided on 30th July, 2005. The ex parte order was recalled and the suit restored to its original file and number. 5. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2, Manik Lal Paul was added as party respondent, on 09.09.2005, on the application moved by the claimant that in fact Manik Lal Paul was the owner of the vehicle. The defendants filed their written statements and the respondent no. 1 stated that he was not the owner of the truck and he had sold the truck to Manik Lal Paul before the date of accident. The defendants filed their written statements and the respondent no. 1 stated that he was not the owner of the truck and he had sold the truck to Manik Lal Paul before the date of accident. The occurrence of the accident was also denied. It was denied that the deceased was employed by respondent no. 1 Jagannath Paul. Respondent no. 2, Manik Lal Paul, also filed a reply and denied all the allegations. 6. Thereafter, issues were framed on 09.08.2006 and the claimant was directed to produce her evidence on 08.09.2006. On the said date, the petitioner did not appear and an application was moved by her learned counsel for grant of adjournment on the ground that necessary documents could not be collected. However, the counsel was not present when the case was called. The Court, however, granted one more opportunity to the petitioner to produce evidence and for this purpose the matter was adjourned to 15.11.2006. On this date also Mr. S.K. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner, was not present though he had submitted an application praying for time to adduce evidence on the ground that the petitioner could not collect all the necessary documents. The learned Court did not accept the prayer and evidence from the side of the petitioner was closed. Statements of the witnesses of the respondent were recorded. Later, Mr. S.K. Datta appeared and at this stage he cross-examined the defendant's witnesses. 7. The order closing the evidence of petitioner was not challenged and, thereafter, the case was adjourned from time to time. On 08.05.2007 Mr. S.K. Dutta submitted Hazira but when the case was called he did not appear. Thereafter arguments of the opposite party were heard and on 24.05.2007 the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, dismissed the claim petition holding that no accident had taken place and that the claimant had failed to prove that her husband was either an employee of the respondent or that he died in an accident which was connected with his employment. 8. After the earlier order of the Workmen Commissioner was recorded the petitioner had to appear in the witness box. She did not care to do so. Earlier she had been examined as witness no. 1 for the petitioner but since she did not care to appear for cross-examination after setting aside of the ex parte order her statement could not be read in evidence. She did not care to do so. Earlier she had been examined as witness no. 1 for the petitioner but since she did not care to appear for cross-examination after setting aside of the ex parte order her statement could not be read in evidence. However, without taking a technical view of the matter, I have read her evidence and all she has stated is that her husband was employed with Jagannath Paul at a salary of Rs. 2,500/- per month. She also stated that while her husband was engaged in loading the wooden logs one log fell on his person and he suffered injuries. She however was not present at the time of accident and has no personal knowledge of the same. 9. Manik Lal Pal filed his affidavit stating that no such accident had taken place and that in fact the truck in question had been hired by one Chaitannya Sarkar of Gandacherra for transportation of his cattle and personal belongings from Gandacherra to Ghosh Khamar village under Belonia Sub-Division and the truck was not at Gandacherra at the relevant time. In this behalf reliance was placed on the application filed by Chaitannya Sarkar before the Gandacherra Police Station seeking permission to take cattle outside Gandacherra. This permission had been granted by the authorities. 10. According to Manik Lal Pal, he along with the truck had gone to Ghosh Khamar village and returned to Gandacherra only on 20th April, 1996. In cross-examination he stated that he had purchased the vehicle from his brother Jagannath Paul in the year 1995 i.e. prior to the accident. He, however, admitted that registration of the truck was transferred in his name in the month of February, 1997. It would be pertinent to mention that this witness has not been cross-examined with regard to his statement that he had taken the truck away from Gandacherra to Ghosh Khamar village in Belonia. There is no cross-examination in this regard. Chaitannya Sarkar also appeared in the witness box. He has also proved the permission which he took to transfer his cattle and according to him, he took the cattle in the truck of Manik Paul. There is no cross-examination of this witness in this regard. DW. There is no cross-examination in this regard. Chaitannya Sarkar also appeared in the witness box. He has also proved the permission which he took to transfer his cattle and according to him, he took the cattle in the truck of Manik Paul. There is no cross-examination of this witness in this regard. DW. 3 is one Sri Narad Das who states that in fact on 31.03.1996 Harish Chandra Das, husband of the petitioner, sustained injuries while cutting a tree near his paddy field. According to him, he took the victim to the hospital. In cross-examination, he has clearly stated that Harish Ch. Das did not die in any vehicular mishap but as a result of a tree falling on his person. 11. The claimant has relied upon some newspaper report in which it was mentioned that one Haru Das, aged about 50, died while carrying logs in a truck. However, this is only a newspaper report and neither the reporter nor any other person has been examined to prove the report. The medical report shows that the claimant died on account of cardio respiratory failure and there is no injury mentioned in the report. 12. From the evidence which is on record it is apparent that the claimant has miserably failed to prove that her deceased husband was employed with any one of the respondents. She has also failed to prove that her deceased husband died due to injuries received during the course of employment. The statements of the witnesses/defendants clearly show that the truck was not even in Gandacherra on the relevant date. DW. 3 has specifically stated that from a distance of about 100 yards he saw Harish falling from a tree. 13. The learned Commissioner has come to a pure finding of fact that the claimant has not proved that the deceased died in any accident during the course of his employment. There is no substantial question of law involved in the case. I have examined the case in detail because a claim petition has been dismissed but after detailed examination, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order and consequently, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.