SINDHI OSMAN NATHUBHAI Vs. HARUN MAMAD CHAKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Sindhi Osman Nathubhai was serving as a driver with the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and having suffered an accident arising out and in the course of employment to wit. fracture of the right leg he submitted an application against the three respondents the third being the New India Insurance Co. Jamnagar to obtain award under the Workmens Compensation Act and the same application was tried as Workman Case No. 6 of 1980. His case before the Commissioner Workmens Compensation Tribunal at Junagadh was that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were doing transport business and he was employed with them as a driver to drive their truck bearing No. G.T.P. 4723 on monthly wages of Rs. 400.00 and Rs. 10.00 towards Bhatha allowances. According to him his total monthly wages were Rs. 700.00 per month. That on 21-11-1978 he was on duty and was driving the truck on Pranchi Road situated at a distance of about 700 kms. from Veraval Patan. He met with an accident while his truck combined with another truck bearing No. G.T.Y. 3562. He sustained an injury on his right thigh and thereafter he was taken to the hospital for treatment. He claimed a sum of Rs. 20 510 from the respondents towards compensation penalty and interest for loss of earning at 40 per cent. He also claimed costs of the application and prayed for award accordingly.

(2.) The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 resisted the application by filing their objections at Exh. 11. They contended that the transport company was owned by the respondent No. 1 only and not by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 jointly. They submitted that the respondent No. 7 had nothing to do with the truck and that he was wrongly joined as a party. They admitted that the appellant was employed with the respondent No. 1 on monthly wages of Rs. 400.00 but they denied that he was paid Rs. 10.00 per clay towards the Bhatha allowances. They further contended that the accountant occurred solely due to the negligence of the appellant and therefore he was not entitled to obtain any compensation under the Workmans Compensation Act. The respondent No. 3. the New India Insurance Co. contended that the truck was insured with them but it was employed with the United India Fire and General insurance Company. The appellant submitted an application to substitute United India Fire and General insurance Company vide application (Exh. 55) but that application was rejected on the ground that it was submitted at a very belated stage.

(3.) When the application came up for hearing before me the learned Advocate Mr. B. R. Kyada for the appellant made an oral request that the names of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 be deleted and I allowed his oral request. The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 therefore stand deleted and shall not be affected by the final order that I will pass in this matter. I may state here that there shall be no order for costs so far as respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned. I may further state that the Commissioner dismissed the application as against the respondent No. 2 as he accepted the submission of the respondent No. 2 that he did not own the truck and that he was wrongly impleaded as one of the opponents. Mr. Kyada candidly stated that he could not press the appellants claim against the respondent No. 2. The result therefore is that there shall be no order against the respondent No 2 also and that the appeal against the respondent No. 2 stands dismissed There shall be no order for costs in that regard also.