AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this
civil misc. appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen''s
Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'')
against the judgment and award dated 30.8.2007 passed by
Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur District, Jaipur
(hereinafter referred to as the "Commissioner") in Claim Case
No.WCCNF/109/06 titled as Subey Singh Yadav Vs/ Umrao & Anr.,
whereby an amount of Rs.1,58,364/- has been awarded in favour
of claimant/respondent Shri Subey Singh Yadav and against the
appellant-Insurance Company.
Skeletal material facts necessary for disposal of this
appeal are that the claimant/respondent Shri Subey Singh Yadav
filed a claim petition against the appellant/Insurance Company
and respondent No.2 Shri Umrao Singh (registered owner of
Tractor No.HR.16-B-9269) claiming compensation on account of
loss suffered by him due to the injuries caused in an accident
allegedly occurred on 21.11.2005 when he was working as a
driver under the instructions of respondent No.2 Shri Umrao Singh
on a Tractor No.HR.16-B-9269. According to the claimant, when
he was going from Kotputali to Gordhanpura, a jeep suddenly
came in front of his tractor and as a result of this, the tractor was
overturned and the claimant sustained injuries and finally suffered
permanent disablement of 20.5%. By way of claim petition, the
claimant claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.4,33,820/-
against the owner and the Insurance Company on the ground that
he was 25 years of age and was getting a salary of Rs.4,000/- per
month and he suffered a permanent disablement of 20.5% while
under employment with the owner of the tractor and this tractor
was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company at the time of
the accident.
The appellant/Insurance Company as well as
respondent/owner filed their respective replies to the claim
petition. The respondent/owner admitted the facts that the
claimant was employed by him as a driver and was being paid a
sum of Rs.4000/- per month. The owner has further stated that at
the time of the accident, the tractor was insured with the
Insurance Company and prayed that the liability for payment of
compensation may be fastened upon the Insurance Company.
The appellant/Insurance Company in it''s reply admitted
the fact that the tractor was insured with it and pleaded that no
premium was charged by the appellant to cover the risk of any
other person including the claimant and, therefore, the appellant
is not liable to pay compensation. It was further stated that the
tractor was covered under the ''Kishan Package Policy'', but no
additional premium was charged for the driver by the appellant
and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, necessary five
issues were framed by the learned Commissioner. The claimant
himself was examined as a witness and got exhibited seven
documents. Two witnesses have been examined on behalf of
Insurance Company and three documents were produced by it.
After hearing the respective parties, the learned Commissioner
passed the impugned judgment and award of Rs.1,58,364/-
alongwith interest @ 12% per annum calculated from one month
after the date of judgment i.e. from 30.9.2007 and it was ordered
that the appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and award, the appellant/Insurance Company is before
this Court by way of this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company
contended that the accident in question is doubtful as no FIR has
been lodged with regard to the accident and there is no mention in
the bed head ticket of the fact that the injuries had been
sustained by the claimant in RTA thus, the so called accident is
merely fabrication of facts to get compensation from the
appellant.
Learned counsel further contended that even if the
accident is presumed to have taken place in the manner as stated
by the claimant, the owner of the tractor has deposed to the
investigator of the Insurance Company that he was paying a sum
of Rs.2000/- per month to the claimant and as against this, the
claimant has deposed in evidence that he was being paid a sum of
Rs.4000/- per month by the owner of the tractor, but the learned
Commissioner instead of relying on the documentary evidence
produced by the Insurance Company i.e. statement of owner of
the vehicle, has relied on the oral statement of the claimant. Thus,
the amount of the award is required to be modified by taking into
account the income of the claimant to be Rs.2000/- per month
only.
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
also gone through the record made available for my perusal as
well as the relevant legal provisions.
Section 30 of the Act provides that an appeal can be
filed only on substantial question of law. Learned counsel for the
appellant has raised following question in this case :
"(a) Whether the Court of the Commissioner, W. C. Act, 1923 has rightly awarded compensation merely on the basis of oral evidence of the claimant without any corroboratory documentary evidence regarding involvement of the tractor in the accident as well as the payment of Rs.3000/- per month as wages to the claimant ?"
My findings on the question raised aforesaid, are as
below :
In view of the fact that the owner/respondent has not
denied, rather he admitted the fact that claimant/respondent was
employed under his employment as a driver, thus this fact cannot
be said to be disputed. It is also not in dispute that at the relevant
time, the tractor was comprehensively insured with the appellant
and it covers the risk of driver of the tractor. The owner of the
aforesaid tractor i.e. respondent No.2 has stated in his reply that
the claimant/respondent was driver of aforesaid tractor and on
21.11.2005 he was driving the same and the accident occurred
due to which the claimant/respondent sustained injuries. With
regard to documentary evidence of the injuries sustained by the
claimant/respondent is concerned, the discharge ticket of Govt.
B. D. M. Hospital, Kotputali (Ex.1) is on record, which shows that
the claimant got fracture of lower 1/3rd of radius in RTA and was
admitted in this hospital on 21.11.2005 and was discharged on
22.11.2005. The discharge ticket of SMS Hospital, Jaipur (Ex.2)
also shows that the claimant was admitted in the hospital on
26.11.2005 and was discharged on 29.11.2005 and it also shows
that the claimant got fracture in Gralleazi of left hand. The
disablement certificate (Ex.4) issued by SMS Hospital, Jaipur
shows that the claimant has suffered 20.5% disability due to
Gralleazi fracture dislocation. In the disablement certificate, it is
mentioned that the injured Sube Singh has restricted movement of left elbow joint and he is unable to fully .....(illegible) and
extensive of elbow joint .....(illegible) has pain and difficulty in
working by left hand. From the evidence of the claimant Sube
Singh, it is also proved that he was having valid driving licence to
drive LMV+Tractor, which is available on record as Ex.7. In
rebuttal of the aforesaid evidence, the Insurance
Company/appellant neither produced any evidence nor any cross-
examination has been done on this point.
Regarding objection of not lodging of FIR is concerned,
there is no provision in the Act of 1923 that FIR must be lodged
after the accident is occurred. It is well settled position of law that
mere not lodging of FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the
claimant''s case. In the present case, the point regarding not
lodging of FIR has been considered by the learned Commissioner
and the same has rightly been rejected looking to the facts and
evidence on record. In addition to this, the owner/respondent in
his reply, has admitted the facts of employment of the
claimant/respondent as a driver of his tractor and also admitted
the fact of the accident and did not deny the fact of injuries
suffered by the claimant in this accident.
The learned Commissioner has also considered the fact
that no documentary evidence has been produced to prove the
income of the claimant to be Rs.4000/- per month, but while
comparing to the prevailing salary rates i.e. Rs.100/- per day,
salary of the driver comes to Rs.3000/- per month, which in the
present scenario is not on higher side. It has also been considered
by the learned Commissioner that at the time of the accident, the
claimant was only 23 years of age and awarded compensation
holding the loss of earning capacity to be 40%. Apart from that,
the above contentions of learned counsel for the appellant cannot
be said to be substantial questions of law.
No other substantial question of law can be said to
have arisen in the present case. As discussed above, none of the
contentions made on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company
can be said to be tenable.
On consideration of submissions made by learned
counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and having regard
to the material made available on record and more particularly
looking to the reasons recorded by the learned Commissioner in
support of the impugned judgment and pleadings taken by the
parties, I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the impugned
judgment requiring interference by this Court.
Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit, is
hereby dismissed.