SAUNDATTI S B Vs. BIYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under S. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act from an order made by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Belgaum, awarding to the dependents of a certain Dastagir, a sum of Rs. 2,100 by way of compensation under S. 3 of the Act. Dastagir, according to the allegations of the respondents, was a cleaner of the appellant and met with an accident on May 31, 1954, in consequence of which he died on that date. The application for compensation was resisted on many grounds. The appellant denied that he was the employer of Dastagir and contended that Dastagir was the employee of another person. He denied that Dastagir met with an accident during the course of his employment. While the respondents alleged that Dastagir was drawing a salary of Rs. 60 a month, the appellant alleged that the salary was only Rs. 30. All these contentions having been overruled by the Commissioner who was of the view that Dastagir was an employee of the appellant drawing a salary of Rs. 60 besides being entitled to some Bhatta and that Dastagir met with his death in the course of his employment by the adoption of the rates specified in Sch. IV to the Act, the Commissioner awarded to the respondents a sum of Rs. 2,100 by way of compensation.

(2.) In this appeal, Sri Bhatta has made many submissions before us. He first contended that a cleaner of a truck is no workman at all for the purpose of the Act and the argument maintained was that since a cleaner is not a person falling within Sch. II to the Act, Dastagir could not have been regarded as a workman for the purpose of the Act. The complete answer to this is Clause 1 of Sch. II which takes within its ambit a person employed otherwise than in a clerical capacity in connexion with the operation or maintenance of a vehicle propelled by steam or electricity or in connexion with the loading or unloading of any such vehicle. This clause is comprehensive enough to take within it a person employed as a cleaner in respect of a vehicle such as a truck.

(3.) The next argument which was maintained before us was the truck bearing No. 2168 which was the vehicle in connexion with which Dastagir was employed was not the appellant's vehicle but was the vehicle belonging to one Limaye. The finding of the Commissioner was that the vehicle was the appellant's vehicle and that being a finding on a pure question of fact and since S. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act authorizes an appeal only if a substantial question of law is involved, we are precluded from considering the correctness of the submission made by Sri Bhatta that Limaye was the owner of the vehicle and not the appellant. It should also be pointed out that the contention raised by the appellant that he was not the owner of the vehicle was an extremely optimistic contention since in his own cross-examination the appellant admitted in more than one place that the bills which he signed included bills relating to truck bearing No. 2168. What is even of greater significance is that the appellant gave a disingenuous answer in his cross-examination that he did not remember if he took the truck No. 2168 from the police custody after the accident.