Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2579 (RAJ)

Brij Naturstein Ltd And Anr v. Chandra Kala

2019-09-24

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 challenging the judgment dated 18.9.2002 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Chittorgarh. 2. The facts as noticed by this Court are that the workman Bhagat Ram met with an accident on 29.8.1997 at 9:30 PM near Village Rolaheda, P.S. Chanderiya on a public road going towards Chanderiya. Bhagat Ram was on motorcycle TVS Suzuki RJ 09/M 4443 and the said motorcycle collided with tractor No.RJA 6794. Bhagat Ram died as a result of the accident. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Bhagat Ram was working with the appellants only for a very short time of 6-7 months and he was being paid Rs.100/- only per day and as such, was a casual labour. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the motorcycle was given by the employer to Bhagat Ram for the purpose of his discharging the duties of employment whereas the timing of the accident itself reflects that the deceased Bhagat Ram was not on duty and was in fact on his private trip to home. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the jurisdiction of the claimants was before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereas they have approached the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the following judgments :- (I) Becharam Mallik vs. Khas Joyrampur Colliery, (1940) AIR Patna 599 . (II) Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Private Ltd. vs. Ibrahim Mahommad Issak, (1970) AIR SC 1906 . (III) Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation and another. vs. Francis De Costa and another, (1997) AIR SC 432 . (IV) Director of Printing, Stationery and Publication. vs. Brahmananda Dhall,1997 LabIC 2808 . 4. Learned counsel for the respondent insurance company, however, submits that it is an admitted position that the insurance company is not liable. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that once the deceased was admitted to be doing ministerial job, then it was not open for the appellants to approach this Court and seek reversal of the award already granted. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that once the deceased was admitted to be doing ministerial job, then it was not open for the appellants to approach this Court and seek reversal of the award already granted. This Court also find no strength in the averment that the deceased was not in the course of employment because the narration of facts clearly indicate that the deceased was going to engage some labours for the purpose of work in the factory. The judgments relied by the learned counsel for the appellants do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand and thus are of no help to the appellants. This Court also finds that the reasons given in the impugned award are well justified and do not call for any interference. 6. Accordingly, the present appeal, having no merits, is hereby dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of.