Raj Kumar vs Kapoor Neelam (Smt.) and another

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—Appellant''s petition under the Workmen''s Compensation Act having been dismissed by the Commissioner, he has filed the present appeal.

A few facts may be noticed.

The appellant filed a petition for the grant of compensation before the Commissioner with the allegation that he was working as a driver of Maruti Van bearing registration No. DBG-6786. On August 8, 1990 he was coming from Panipat toward Kamal in the course of his employment with Smt. Kapoor Neelam. There was an accident with Matador Tempo bearing registration No. HR-05-3635. The appellant claimed that he had received multiple injuries on vital parts of his body. In particular, he claimed that his leg was fractured. He claimed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest.

Smt. Kapoor Neelam was impleaded as a respondent. She was not served. An application, under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 of the CPC was filed. It was played that "in the array of respondents Smt. Kapoor Neelam wife of Shri Jaswant Singh may kindly be served through Shri Gurcharan Singh son of Shri Harbans Singh resident RB-78, Sadar Bazar, Wakil Pura, Karnal, special attorney." It appears that this prayer was allowed. Shri Gurcharan Singh appeared. He filed a written statement averring categorically that he had "no concern whatsoever with Smt. Kapoor Neelam nor was he appointed as attorney ..." for her. On this basis he claimed that "Smt. Kapoor Neelam cannot be represented through the answering respondent and she be ordered to be sued in her individual capacity and the notice be sent directly to her." Even on merits he filed a reply. He filed a separate application for deleting his name from the array of respondents. The case was adjourned a number of times.

The Commissioner framed the following issues :

"1. Whether applicant was the employee of respondent No. 1 on the alleged date of the accident i.e. on August 8, 1990 ? OPA.

Whether the alleged accident of the applicant took place in the course of and during the employment of respondent No. 1 ? OPA.

Whether Shri Gurcharan Singh son of Shri Harbans Singh was holding a power of attorney on behalf of respondent No. 1 from vehicle No. DBG-6786 on the alleged date of accident ? OPA

Whether the applicant suffered any disability due to the alleged accident, if so, to what percentage he suffers disability and what is the nature of disability ? OPA

Whether the applicant is entitled to any compensation ? OPA

Relief."

The appellant appeared as a witness. Thereafter no other evidence was led. Ultimately the Commissioner found that the applicant had not been able to prove his case as neither "respondent No. 1 has been served due to non-location of her correct address nor the power of attorney allegedly held by Shri Gurcharan Singh for respondent No. 1 has been proved on record despite a number of opportunities afforded to the applicant in this regard. So the claim application fails on this account." Still further, it was observed that "under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act and u/s 3(5) of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, the claimant can seek relief only from one forum. On this score also his claim application is not maintainable." Thus, the appellant''s claim was rejected by the Commissioner. Hence this appeal.

Shri Sanjeev Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant, contends that the Commissioner has arbitrarily and wrongly rejected the claim. Is it so ?

It deserves notice that in the claim petition, as filed by the appellant, it had been categorically pleaded that he had suffered injuries "during course of employment of opposite party No. 1". The party was Smt. Kapoor Neelam. This submission was repeated in different paragraphs of the petition. However, when the appellant appeared as A.W. 1 he categorically stated that he was employed as a driver on Maruti Van No. DBG 6786 by Mr. Gurcharan Singh Bedi and not by Smt. Kapoor Neelam. Still further in the claim petition he had averred that his leg had been fractured. However, as a witness he claimed that his leg and arm were fractured. No medical evidence to even prove a scratch on his body was produced. Yet it was claimed that an amount of Rs. 70,000/- had been spent by him on the treatment. It was the claim of the appellant that he had remained admitted in a Government Hospital. However, even the hospital record was not summoned and proved.

After examination of the record of the case it appears that the appellant has no regard for truth. He can tell lies without any compunction. He keeps changing his stand from stage to stage. The evidence on the record does not prove that he had suffered any injury. Even the factum of employment with respondent Smt. Kapoor Neelam or even with Gurcharan Singh Bedi, the alleged attorney, has not been proved. Nothing has been brought on the record to show as to who was the owner of the vehicle. Still further, even with regard to the relationship with the employer, the appellant has made different statements in his petition and in the Court.

Taking the totality of circumstances into consideration, the claim, as made by the appellant, cannot be sustained. Thus, there is no alternative except to dismiss the appeal. It is so ordered. Since no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents, there shall be no order as to costs.