ANAND Vs. ABDUL WAHID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is before this Court challenging the dismissal of his claim for compensation before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. It is the claim of the appellant that he was travelling in a lorry and that he was a coolie employed as a loader and he was travelling along with the goods vehicle. However, no evidence was tendered as regards the jural relationship of employer and employee. The employer never entered the witness box and further to compound the misery of the appellant, he had admitted in his evidence that on the date of the accident he was employed as a cowherd and was tending cattle in the land of one Mallappa and was apparently travelling in the lorry either as a gratuitous passenger or a fare paying passenger and not as an employee. Thus, the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, is tenable, especially in the absence of any material evidence to point otherwise. The claimant has defeated his own case. However, the learned counsel for the appellant would now state that, if he is given another opportunity, it may be possible for him to examine the employer and to establish that, apart from being a cowherd he was also working as a coolie employed as loader. This cannot be permitted, as there is a categorical admission which defeats the case of the appellant. In any event no substantial question of law arises. The appeal is therefore rejected.