Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2697 (RAJ)

N. I. C. v. Dhera Ram

2019-10-17

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This misc. appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 has been preferred by the appellantInsurance Company claiming the following reliefs: "It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that during the pendency of the appeal, the amount deposited by the appellant company, in compliance of the impugned judgment and award dated 02.12.2002, may not be paid to the claimant. Any other relief which may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of this case may kindly be passed in favour of the appellant company." 2. The unfortunate accident had happened on 12.10.2000 when Smt. Devi wife of the claimant while working at the mining site, got injured due to a rolling stone, resulting into her death. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has demonstrated from the record, particularly, the FIR that the Mine owner Kalyan Singh registered the FIR, in an hour of the accident stating therein that the lady working at the mining site died on account stone rolling over her when she was retrieving stones in the mine. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has also demonstrated from the notice dated 18.01.2001, which was Exhibit-9 sent on behalf of the claimant to the mine owner Kalyan Singh and the contractor Saka Ram for seeking compensation on account of claimant's wife having died, during the course of her employment with them. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance has also drawn attention of this Court towards the Final Report of the FIR, in which, the police has concluded that the unfortunate death did not happen due to the accident involving the truck. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company however submits that the Insurance Company is an insurer of the truck, and once the accident is not attributed to the truck, its liability comes to an end. 6. On the other hand, leaned counsel for the respondents submits that the aforesaid notice dated 18.01.2001 was responded by the mine owner on 16.02.2001, informing the claimant that his wife was under employment in relation to the truck in question. Another notice was issued by the claimants to the truck owner and the Insurance Company thereafter. 7. 6. On the other hand, leaned counsel for the respondents submits that the aforesaid notice dated 18.01.2001 was responded by the mine owner on 16.02.2001, informing the claimant that his wife was under employment in relation to the truck in question. Another notice was issued by the claimants to the truck owner and the Insurance Company thereafter. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that it was a clear case where the deceased, while working for the truck owner, had expired due to the injuries caused by rolling over of the stone at the mining site. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the FIR cannot be a conclusive evidence, in light of the fact that the subsequent evidence has clearly indicated the involvement of the truck in question. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the firm opinion that though the FIR cannot be a conclusive evidence in such cases, but it is certainly the first version, particularly, when it has been promptly lodged, and that too, by the person, who is actually a mining owner and wants to shirk away from the responsibility of paying the compensation to the deceased lady. 9. This Court finds that the documents of the criminal proceedings including the investigation report clearly indicate that a neutral authority of the police has arrived at a conclusion that the death in question did not happen due to the accident by the truck or by a person working with the truck. The subsequent evidence, which has been rendered, could have been believed if it was not contradicted by the FIR and the legal notice given by the claimant himself. The notice of the claimant himself reflects his prima-facie knowledge of his wife having been in employment of the mine owner. 10. In light of the aforesaid observations, the present misc. appeal is allowed to the extent that while the computation and rest of the award shall remain the same, the liability of paying the amount in question shall be upon respondent No.2-Kalyan Singh. However, if any amount has been deposited by the Insurance Company, but has not been disbursed to the claimants, the same shall be refunded back to the Insurance Company. All pending applications stand disposed of.