Court No. - 32
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2141 of 2014 Appellant :- Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Respondent :- Jag Sharan And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Amaresh Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- Nigamendra Shukla,Satya Deo Ojha
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Abhai Kumar,J.
This appeal was admitted on 17.7.2014 and notices were directed to be issued to the respondent no.3.
The respondent nos.1 and 2 are representing through counsel Sri Nigamendra Shukla, Advocate and respondent no.3 is representing through counsel Sri S.D. Ojha, Advocate.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, Sri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 2 and perused the record.
This first appeal from order has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 24.1.2013 passed by Employee's Compensation Commissioner, Agra in W.C. Case No.186 of 2011 as well as judgement and order dated 15.5.2014 passed by Employee's Compensation Commissioner, Hapur in W.C. Case No.38 of 2012 (Jag Sharan and others vs. Anees Khan and others).
Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that court below was not justified in allowing the claim petition, which was against the evidence on record. The incident did not take place during the course of employment of the deceased, who was claiming to the cleaner of the Turk bearing registration No.UP 14 BT 1340 and the claim petition was allowed without recording any finding on the application moved on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company for making available the copy of driving licence and route permit fitness certificate and to summon the investigating officer, who prepared the final report. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that court below was not justified to record the finding, which was against the evidence on record and case of the claimant was doubtful in view of final report submitted by the investigating officer in criminal case, and as such, the impugned award is liable to set aside.
Learned counsel for the claimant vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the court below has decided the claim petition on the basis of evidence adduced, which was found reliable. From the record it is clear that the deceased was a cleaner of truck in question. He was employed by the owner of the truck in question as a cleaner and a salary of Rs.8000/- was being paid and the truck in question was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, which is not disputed. Hence, the present appeal devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
The incident took place in the night of 13th April, 2012 when the deceased, who was working as a cleaner, was travelling alongwith the driver on Truck bearing registration No.UP14 BT 1340. According to the claim petition, while going from Gulavathi to Hapur in the way the truck was stopped while he was going to ease himself, the truck coming from the side, hit the clearner Mukesh Kumar and as a result he died on the spot. However, according to the final report submitted by police after investigation, the deceased Mukesh Kumar fell down from window of truck and received injures.
Learned counsel for the appellant was relying this report and if this report is accepted, then the case of the claimant that he was the clearer, is supported by this report, which shows the presence of the deceased in the truck in question. This aspect has been considered by the court below. It was also found to have been proved that he was the cleaner and the same was proved from the material produced on behalf of claimant.
Admittedly, the truck in question was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. The only argument that application for supplying the documents verification is denied. Admittedly, those documents filed before the court concerned, but till date it is not a case of the appellant-Insurance Company that those documents were not valid and genuine. Hence, the court below found that at least the death was during the course of employment and it was an accidental death.
Hence, in view of the fact that there is no substantial question of law involved and interference against the finding of fact is not required. The present appeal devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.2.2018/Ajeet