Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2680 (RAJ)

Maya Kanwar And Anr v. Gurmeet Singh

2019-10-15

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 has been filed for the following reliefs :- "It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the judgment and award dated 24.10.2005 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, Bhilwara in Case No.42/02 (Fatal), may kindly be quashed and set aside and the claim petition filed by the appellants before the Commissioner may kindly be allowed and the compensation may kindly be awarded to the appellants as claimed by them in their claim petition with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident and penalty of 50% of the awarded compensation may kindly be imposed on the employer." 2. The unfortunate accident happened on 25.5.2001 wherein Bhanwar Singh, who was driving Tempo bearing regn. No.RRL-2473, expired during the course of his employment. 3. Counsel for the appellant has demonstrated from the notice (Exh.6) issued U/s. 133 of MV Act, which is a part of record, whereon there is admission on the part of respondent no.1 in front of the learned Authority that he is registered-owner of the Tempo No. RRL-2473 and Bhanwar Singh was driving the said said Tempo when accident happened on 25.5.2001. Counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court towards another document reflecting execution of sale of Tempo by respondent no.1 in favour of Nathu Singh (father of deceased), which is dated 28.6.2001 and is executed and signed post-accident, although, the document speaks that the sale in-question happened on 10.9.2000. Counsel for the appellant submits that it in not in dispute that respondent no.1 is registered owner of the Tempo inquestion. Counsel for the appellant further submits that reply to the notice issued to respondent no.1 U/s.133 of MV Act, is neutral and initial version of the respondent no.1 that he is registered owner of the vehicle and deceased Bhanwar Singh was under his employment. 4. Counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the submission on the ground that respondent no.1 had sold the vehicle in-question on 10.9.2000 to father of Bhanwar Singh (deceased), thus, he was no longer liable to pay compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. 4. Counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the submission on the ground that respondent no.1 had sold the vehicle in-question on 10.9.2000 to father of Bhanwar Singh (deceased), thus, he was no longer liable to pay compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Counsel for the respondent has also submitted that wife of deceased made a vague statement that Bhanwar Singh was rendering service as Driver with some 'Sardar Ji' and, therefore, it cannot be said to be a valid and trustworthy statement. Counsel for the respondent, however, is not in a position to deny that respondent no.1 is registered owner of the vehicle in-question. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing record of the case, this Court finds that the learned Authority below disbelieved the police investigation and notice U/s.133 of MV Act (Exh.6) wherein the respondent no.1 has himself admitted that he was owner of Tempo and Bhanwar Singh (deceased), on the day of accident was functioning as his Driver. This Court does not find any just reason why statement of wife of deceased should be ignored only on the ground that she vaguely mentioned that her husband was in employment of one 'Sardar Ji', particularly, when owner of vehicle is admittedly respondent no.1 Gurmeet Singh, who is Sardar Ji, thus, relationship of workman and employer stands established. The statement of respondent no.1 cannot be of any help to the employer to wriggle out of compensation for which he is statutorily liable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, which is a beneficial legislation. Sale agreement entered into between respondent no.1 & 2 after the date of accident i.e. on 19.6.2001, whereas the accident happened on 25.5.2001 do not induce confidence of this Court. Further counsel for respondent no.1 has failed to establish by showing any document executed prior to the accident that he was not the owner. 6. Counsel for the parties are directed to submit their joint fresh re-computation of compensation while treating income of deceased Driver as skilled employee as per the minimum wages prevailing on the relevant date. Age of deceased 24 Minimum wages of skilled person on the date of accident Rs.1768/- per month. Factor to be applied 218.47 1768 x 1/2 x 218.47 Rs.193127.48 7. In light of aforesaid submissions and observation, the appeal is allowed. Age of deceased 24 Minimum wages of skilled person on the date of accident Rs.1768/- per month. Factor to be applied 218.47 1768 x 1/2 x 218.47 Rs.193127.48 7. In light of aforesaid submissions and observation, the appeal is allowed. Respondent no.1 is directed to pay amount of Rs.1,93,127.48 alongwith 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual payment is made.