Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1265 (RAJ)

Ram Lal Dangi v. Roop Lal Dangi

2015-07-08

VINEET KOTHARI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Vineet Kothari, J. The present misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant/non-claimant (Owner of Truck No.RJ-27-GA-3314) against the order dated 13.06.2012 passed by learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Udaipur in WC Case No.57/2009- Rooplal v. Ram Lal, whereby the learned Commissioner dismissed the application filed by the appellant/non-claimant under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree for payment of compensation in WC Case No.57/2009- Rooplal v. Ram Lal dated 24.01.2011. 2. The claimant/respondent filed claim petition claiming the compensation against the non-claimant/appellant herein on account of the injuries suffered by him during the course of employment, while he was working as the Driver on the Truck owned by the appellant, which met with an accident on 14.02.2009. In the said accident, the right leg of the claimant/respondent was crushed and he suffered fracture. 3. The learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Udaipur, vide the impugned award dated 24.01.2011 awarded the compensation in favour of claimant/respondent to the tune of Rs. 5,34,504/- as the right leg of the claimant/injured got crushed entirely causing fratures. The said claim petition was decided ex parte against the non-claimant/appellant, Ram Lal S/o Manaji Dangi, owner of the truck, since the despite service of the summons, nobody appeared on behalf of appellant before the learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Udaipur and, therefore, ex parte proceedings were ordered to be drawn on 22.11.2010. 4. The present appellant/non-claimant filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC for recalling the judgment and award dated 24.01.2011, which also came to be rejected by the learned Commissioner on 13.06.2012 and aggrieved by the same, the non-claimant has filed the present appeal before this Court. 5. None has appeared on behalf of respondent/claimant despite service. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the case of this Court in the case of Amar Singh v. Rajkumar reported in 2012 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1305 submitted that in the application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC, the non-claimant (appellant) had clearly stated that there was no person in his family of the name Ganesh Lal S/o Manaji, who is said to have received the summons of the claim petition and, therefore, the ex parte proceedings were illegally drawn against him and the application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC deserved to be allowed by the learned Commissioner. 7. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/non-claimant, this Court is satisfied that there is no error in the impugned order dated 13.06.2012 of the learned Commissioner. While rejecting the said application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC, the learned Commissioner has found that no documentary evidence was produced by the appellant to establish that summons were served on a wrong person or a person not related to the non-claimant, Ram Lal. Mere averment made in the application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC even though supported by the affidavit uncorroborated with any documentary evidence like copy of ration card, certificate of the Sarpanch of the village certifying the fact that no person with name Ganesh S/o Manaji, is residing in the village at the address given etc. on whom the summons were said to have been served, are not sufficient. The learned Commissioner cannot, therefore, be said to have faulted in not relying upon the version of the non-claimant and rejecting his application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC. Even otherwise, the case under the Workmen Compensation Act prescribes for computation of the compensation as per scheduled rates. The ownership of the truck in question has not been disputed by the non-claimant/appellant, Ramlal. 8. The accident having admittedly taken place with the use of that motor vehicle viz. the Truck, and the claimant had suffered serious and grievous injuries and was directed to be paid this compensation in the ex parte proceedings drawn after service of summons. Unless the non-claimant could ex facie, with the help of documentary evidence, establish that summons were served on a person not related to him, the ex parte proceedings could not be set aside. 9. As far as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Amar Singh (supra) is concerned, suffice it to say that the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the facts of that case were entirely different. In the said case, ex parte proceedings were set aside on the given facts where the dispute of land was there and the wife of the appellant was found to be seriously ill and he engaged lawyer and the court held that the litigant could not be punished for the fault of the lawyer. In the said case, ex parte proceedings were set aside on the given facts where the dispute of land was there and the wife of the appellant was found to be seriously ill and he engaged lawyer and the court held that the litigant could not be punished for the fault of the lawyer. Nothing of this sort is available in the case at hand and, therefore, this judgment cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. 10. Accordingly and in view of above discussion, the present misc. appeal is found to be bereft of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.