The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sundresh and Others

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.—Respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed a claim application alleging that one Rajbir Singh (husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent No. 2) was in the employment of respondent No. 3 and was working on his truck No. HR-21GA-0114, as cleaner, under the instructions of respondent No. 3. On 30.8.2006, when they were coming from Hansi side, the driver of the truck noticed some smoke from the engine of the truck. On the instructions of the driver, when Rajbir Singh was in the process of bringing the bucket from the roof, the driver moved the truck and due to jerk, he fell down and suffered injuries. He was brought to a private hospital at Jind from where he was shifted to PGIMS, Rohtak but he died on 11.11.2006. The claimants further alleged that they were not paid any compensation despite repeated requests. Thus, the instant claim application was filed. Upon notice, the appellant as well as respondent No. 3 filed replies. The owner of the truck admitted that said Rajbir Singh was under his employment and had suffered injuries during the course of employment on 30.8.2006. However, the appellant denied the claim on the ground that truck No. HR-21GA-0114 was not insured with them and no other defence was taken.

On the aforesaid pleadings, following issues were framed:--

Whether there existed the relationship of Master and Servant between respondent No. 1 and Sh. Rajbir since deceased? If so, what its effect?

Whether the injuries resulting into death of Sh. Rajbir (since deceased) were caused during the course of employment? If so, what its effect?

Whether the petitioners are entitled to the claimed amount or not? If so, from whom?

Relief.

It is a matter of record that the claimant-respondents No. 1 and 2 have stepped into the witness box to support their case. However, neither respondent No. 3 nor any one on behalf of appellant appeared in the witness box to controvert their claim and thus, the Commissioner, Jind under the Workmen''s Compensation Act vide award dated 17.12.2010 granted compensation to the claimants.

Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has vehemently argued that no medical evidence has been produced on record to prove the fact that Rajbir Singh died due to the injuries suffered by him during the course of his employment on 30.8.2006, which was essential.

The argument raised is fallacious. The claimants have stepped into the witness box to support their case. However, despite denying their claim, none has stepped into the witness box on behalf of the appellant to controvert the aforesaid claim. In fact, a stand has been taken that no such accident has taken place with the vehicle in question. Having failed to step into the witness box even to support its stand taken in the written statement, the appellant-Insurance Company is estopped from raising any argument. Thus, no substantial questions of law, as raised, arise in this appeal.

Dismissed.