Court No. - 30
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3287 of 2012 Appellant :- National Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Ramlali And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Radhey Shyam Counsel for Respondent :- Jai Prakash Singh
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. This first appeal from order has been moved by the National Insurance Company Limited against judgement and order dated 23.06.2012 passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner/Assistant Labour Commissioner in Case No.42 of 2010, whereby the appellant was directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3,23,178/- within 30 days.
3. Brief facts of this case as reflected from the record is that some accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of Truck No.UP 78 AN 1494 around 2.30 P.M. at village- Ethapur by over- speeding the truck due to which it over-turned, thus, causing injuries to the deceased- Awadhesh Kumar, Consequently, he died on account of injuries having been caused to him. Claim petition was moved before Workmen's Compensation Court by the claimant- respondents, whereby it was claimed that the deceased was employed to work as a 'khalasi' on the truck of respondent no.5- Sumit Gupta- the truck owner- and was working as such at the time of the accident. In this case, matter was contested and issues were framed and finding on each issue was specifically recorded and after calculating various pros and cons of the case and as per the formula given in the relevant provisions of the workmen's Compensation Act, overall compensation amount under various heads to the tune of Rs.3,23,178/- was awarded to the claimant- respondents, feeling aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has come up before this Court for consideration.
4. Only contention raised before this Court is that no doubt the truck in question was ensured with the appellant insurance company but that was not meant to be used for carrying passenger and the deceased- say- Awadhesh Kumar was travelling in the capacity of a passenger and this fact was erroneously adjudicated upon by the Compensation Commissioner holding that he was a 'Khalasi' instead of being a passenger.
5. Learned counsel for the claimant- respondents has claimed that insofar as the point of 'passenger' and 'Khalasi' is concerned, then the same has been deliberated upon while disposing of issue no.1, and on the basis of specific and categorical testimony of the wife of the deceased (Smt. Ramlali- claimant- respondent no.1) and upon facts established, it was rightly opined and held by the Commissioner- Workmen's Compensation that the deceased was acting as 'Khalasi' on the truck at the time of the accident and that finding, from any stretch of imagination, cannot be said to be either erroneous or perverse or against the material on record. Nothing adverse has emerged from the cross-
examination of P.W.1- the wife of the deceased (Smt. Ramlali). Apart from that the truck owner has himself admitted fact that the deceased was travelling on the truck in the capacity of 'Khalasi' and he was employed by him as such.
6. Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the truck owner respondent no.5 has vehemently claimed that in this case there is no point in disowning the responsibility that the deceased was not working as 'Khalasi' on the truck of the respondent no.5 on the date of the accident.
7. Considered the submissions so raised and also perused the impugned award dated 23.6.2012, whereby the relevant documents concerning the claim raised before the Commissioner concerned have been duly proved and the authenticity of these papers and the genuineness of the claim raised was found to be consistent and there is noting adverse in the cross- examination of P.W.1- the wife of the deceased, which may cast any shadow of doubt on her testimony and to hold adversely that the deceased was not travelling in the capacity of a 'Khalasi', consequently, the finding recorded in relation to the status of the deceased being 'khalasi' cannot be interfered with at this stage by this Appellate Court.
8. Consequently, this appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. It being the workmens' compensation appeal, the entire amount has already been deposited, The remaining balance of amount shall also be given to the claimant-
respondents forthwith.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019
Raj