LAWS(GJH)-2010-3-20

SHANKARJI KALUJI THAKOR Vs. CHHABILDAS BABULAL JAIN

Decided On March 08, 2010
SHANKARJI KALUJI THAKOR Appellant
V/S
CHHABILDAS BABULAL JAIN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, who are the original claimants, have brought under challenge the award dated 21st July, 2004 passed by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Palanpur in Workman Compensation Case. The appellants have challenged the said award to the limited extent in so far as the learned Commissioner has not awarded interest and penalty. The appellants have not raised any challenge or dispute as regards the award for compensation.

(2.) The facts giving rise to present Appeal are that the son of the appellants, who was employed by opponent No.1 as a labourer, met with an accident on 17th September, 1992 while he was traveling in the truck bearing registration No.GTF-4184 owned by the opponent No.1 and insured by the opponent No.2. He met with the accident while he was on duty (working as labourer) on the said truck which was returning to Deesa from Mangrol. The appellants claimed before the learned Commissioner that the driver had lost control of the truck which led to the accident. The victim died on the spot. The employer opponent No.1 was aware about the accident and the complaint pertaining to the accident was lodged by the opponent No.1. Since the appellants were not paid any compensation, they were constrained to prefer the Workman Compensation Case which came to be registered as Workman Compensation Case No.30 of 1992 and was then renumbered as workman Compensation Case No.124 of 1996 wherein, the award impugned in present Appeal came to be passed on 21st July, 2004. By the impugned award, the learned Commissioner has awarded Rs.89,600/- towards compensation and held that the opponent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation amount.

(3.) Mr. J.T.Trivedi, learned advocate has appeared for the appellants and Mr. K.K.Nair, learned advocate has appeared for the opponent No.2 insurance company. Though served, no one has entered appearance on behalf of the opponent No.1.