Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1306 (RAJ)

Arjun Ram Vishnoi v. Bhanwar Lal Vishnoi

2015-07-15

VINEET KOTHARI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Vineet Kothari, J. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant, father of deceased workman-Muknaram, who unfortunately lost his life in an accident while he was working as Cleaner ("Khalasi") on Truck number RJ-19-G-0671 and on 13.06.1997 while the said Truck was in transit from Jodhpur to Calcutta, the said truck met with an accident and the injured son of the appellant, namely, Muknaram died in hospital while under treatment. 2. The appellant/claimant Arjun Ram, filed the claim petition under the provisions of Workmen Compensation Act and also produced a certificate of payment of salary of Rs. 2000/- per month from the owner of offending vehicle Truck, third respondent, Jawataram (Ex.2). 2. The appellant/claimant Arjun Ram, filed the claim petition under the provisions of Workmen Compensation Act and also produced a certificate of payment of salary of Rs. 2000/- per month from the owner of offending vehicle Truck, third respondent, Jawataram (Ex.2). However, the learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Jodhpur rejected the claim petition with the following observations:- ^rudh;kr uEcj&1% ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 izn'kZ ih&1 dks ns[kus ls irk yxrk gS fd nq?kZVuk fnukad 13-6-1997 dks xkao&lksHk] Fkkuk&okjkpV~Vh] ftyk&xk] esa gqbZ Fkh ftlesa e`rd dks Vªd la[;k vkj0ts0 19 th0 0671 dks [kyklh crk;k x;k gSA ;g dFku ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 ds vuqlkj e`rd }kjk fn;k x;k crk;k x;k gSA ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 ds fu"d"kksZa dh iqf"V esa izkFkhZ us xkM+h ekfyd dk izek.k&i= is'k fd;k gS] ijUrq izn'kZ ih&2 blesa tks Vªd dk uEcj fy[kk gS og vkj0ts0 19 0671 gh vafdr gSA tks blesa foyksfir gSA blls ;gh vk'k; fudyrk gS fd izek.k&i= esa Vªd okys dks Vªd dk uEcj ;k rks ;kn ugha gS vFkok mldk ;g izek.k&i= fdlh vksj ls fy[kok;k x;k gSA bl izek.k&i= esa fy[kk gS fd eqdukjke mDr Vªd ij nks o"kksZa ls yxkrkj [kyklh o Dyhuj dk dke djrk FkkA og nks o"kksZa dh vof/k dc ls dc rd dh Fkh] Li"V ugha gS vkSj u gh bl izek.k&i= esa dksbZ rF; gh vafdr gS ftlds vk/kkj ij nks o"kZ dh vof/k fudkyh tk ldsA izek.k&i= dh bckjr uhyh L;kgh ls fy[kh x;h gS tcfd ml ij gjh L;kgh ls tkcrkjke izn'kZ , Vw ch ds gLrk{kj gksus vafdr gSaA bl izek.k&i= ds vk/kkj ij o bu =qfV;ksa ds dkj.k ;g lkfcr ugha gksrk gS fd eqdukjke fdl vof/k esa fnukad 13-6-1997 dks gqbZ nq?kZVuk esa rFkkdfFkr Vªd ij [kyklh o Dyhuj ds in ij dk;Z djrk FkkA izrhr gksrk gS fd izek.k&i= nq?kZVuk ds ckn QthZ :i esa U;k;ky; ls ykHk izkIr djus dh n`f"V ls cuk;k x;k gSA Lo;a vtqZujke us vius c;ku esa lwfpr fd;k gS fd bl izek.k&i= dh bckjr fdl us fy[kh eq>s irk ughaA lh0Vh0Mh0 bckjr tkcrk jke us ugha fy[kh bl vk/kkj ij Hkh ;g izek.k&i= QthZ izek.k&i= Bgjrk gS] blfy, bl izek.k&i= ds vk/kkj ij dksbZ Hkh fu"d"kZ fudkyuk U;k;ksfpr ugha gSA izkFkhZ dk ;g dFku fd e`rd vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 o 3 ds Vªd la[;k vkj0ts0 19 th0 0671 ij [kyklh ds :i esa dk;Z djrk Fkk] ek= ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 esa fy[kk;k x;k gS fd ekSds ij mifLFkr pkSdhnkj y[ku iklu ds c;ku esa fy;k x;k gSA bu c;kuksa dh lk{; ij vizkFkhZ la[;k 1] 2 o 3 dh vksj ls dksbZ lk{; ugha gksus ds dkj.k vkSj buds fo:) ,d i{kh; dk;Zokgh dh tkus ds dkj.k dksbZ lcwr ugha izLrqr gks lds gSa ftldh deh ds dkj.k ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 esa fn;s x;s c;ku dYiuk ek= ekus tk ldrs gSa vkSj bl lEHkkouk dks bUdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd fnukad 13-6-1997 dks tks/kiqj ls dydRrk tkus okyh V~d la[;k vkj0ts0 19 th 0671 esa lokj e`rd [kykhl u gksdj dksbZ ;k=h gS vr% bl rudh;kr dk fu.kZ; izkFkhZ ds fo:) tkrk gS vkSj ;g ekuk tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ ;g fl) djus esa l{ke ugha jgk fd e`rd Vªd uEcj vkj0ts0 19 th 0671 ij cgSfl;r [kyklh ds in ij dk;Zjr FkkA* 3. Mr. L.K. Purohit, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that rejection of the claim is absolutely unsustainable since the father of the deceased Arjunram had clearly stated before the learned Commissioner that deceased, Muknaram, was working as Cleaner on the said truck had also produced a salary certificate signed by the owner of the vehicle, viz. Sh. Jawataram; and despite these two oral and documentary evidence, the claim petition was rejected. He further submitted that the claim petition deserves to be decided on merits determining the compensation as it is a death case. 4. On the other hand, Mr. D.R. Loonker, learned counsel appearing on behalf of fourth respondent-The New India Assurance Company, insurer of the offending vehicle submitted that the salary certificate produced by the appellant/claimant does not mention the period for which the said salary of Rs. 2000/- per month was paid and the signatures of said Sh. Jawataram, are in green ink on Ex.2, which is different from the main contents of the certificate, which are in blue ink. He also submitted that since deceased, namely, Muknaram, was a married person as admitted by the claimant, father himself in the statement recorded before the learned Commissioner and in the absence of wife of the deceased having been arrayed as party-claimant, the claim petition has rightly been rejected. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is satisfied that rejection of claim petition in the present case is not justified and the present appeal of the appellant/claimant deserves to be allowed. The oral evidence of the father of the deceased Muknaram remained unrebutted in his cross-examination or other contrary evidence produced by the non-claimant and on the contrary the employer/owner of the Truck, namely, Jawataram, had himself issued the salary certificate (Ex.2) substantiating the fact that the deceased was his employee and was earning Rs. 2000/- per month. The owner of the said truck did not appear before the learned Commissioner, and therefore, in absence of any cross-examination, no further facts could be brought before the learned Commissioner to controvert the said written document issued by him. The difference of ink colour, does not render the said evidence inadmissible. 2000/- per month. The owner of the said truck did not appear before the learned Commissioner, and therefore, in absence of any cross-examination, no further facts could be brought before the learned Commissioner to controvert the said written document issued by him. The difference of ink colour, does not render the said evidence inadmissible. Further, non-joinder of the deceased's wife as party-claimant in the claim petition, also does not make the claim petition unsustainable, when the claim is filed under the provisions of Workmen Compensation Act, which is a beneficial legislation and compensation is awarded on account of death or injury of the workman, suffered during the course of the employment. Merely because the wife of the deceased was not arrayed as party-claimant in the claim petition filed by the father (appellant/claimant), that cannot be made a basis for non-maintainability of the claim petition itself. In the present case, the appellant/claimant is the father of the deceased and he being legal representative of deceased can very well file a claim petition claiming compensation on account of death of his son. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to maintain the claim petition, and thus on both the objections raised by the learned counsel for the fourth respondent-The New India Assurance Company, the rejection of claim by the learned Commissioner cannot be sustained and the present appeal filed by the claimant/appellant deserves to be allowed. 6. Accordingly and in view of above, the present appeal is allowed and setting aside the impugned order dated 13.08.2003, the matter is restored back to the learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Jodhpur for deciding the claim afresh on merits in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six months from today. The parties or their counsel may appear in the first instance on 10.08.2015 before the learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Jodhpur. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith. Appeal allowed.