CHIMAN SURAKHIA VASAVA Vs. AHMED MUSA USTAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by an injured workman who as a result of the decision given by the learned Commissioner for Workmens Compensation has become an employee without there being an employer. Such is the astounding result brought about by the learned Commissioner by taking hyper-technical view and by following the strict principles of rules of pleadings and Evidence Act which are not applicable to the cases under Workmens Compensation Act 1923

(2.) The learned Commissioner for Workmens Compensation Bharuch (the learned Civil Judge Senior Division who is ex-officio Commissioner) has rejected the application of the injured workman for compensation solely on the ground that there was no sufficient proof to show that the workman was employed either by respondent No. 1 truck owner or respondent No. 3 quarry owner. On 6/01/1983 when the workman was engaged in lifting the stones from the quarry belonging to respondent No. 3 and filling the stones in the truck belonging to respondent No. 1 a stone accidentally fell on his hand. As a result of this accident he received injury on his left hand index finger. Two phalanges of left index finger had been crushed. Ultimately both the phalanges had to be amputated. The medical certificate issued by the appropriate medical authority shows that the workman had suffered 11% permanent partial disability on account of the accidental injury received by him. The workman filed an application for compensation. In the application he alleged that he was employed by respondent No. 1 as well as by respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 2 is the Insurance Company with which the truck belonging to respondent No. 1 was insured. Therefore respondent No. 2 Insurance Company has also been joined as party in the application. The truck owner as well as the quarry owner resisted the claim inter alia on the ground that the appellant- workman was not their employee. Respondent No. 2 - Insurance Company also supported the case put forth by the truck owner i.e. respondent No. 1. After recording evidence the learned Commissioner for Workmens Compensation (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner ) came to the conclusion that the workman had received injury on account of the accident which arose out of anew during the course of employment. He also came to the conclusion that daily wage of the workman was Rs. 10 per day. But he found that the workman had failed to prove as to with whom he was employed and hence rejected the application filed by the workman as per his judgment and order dated 15/12/1984 against which this appeal is filed by the unsuccessful workman.

(3.) The learned Commissioner read the application filed by the workman as if he was construing pleadings drafted by highly trained advocates assisted by solicitors. He found discrepancy between the avernments made in the application and the evidence of the workman. According to him the workman had stated in his application that he was employed by the truck owner as well as by the owner of the quarry while in his evidence he stated that he was employed by the truck owner only. Despite the fact that there was no contrary evidence led by either the truck owner or the owner of the quarry the learned Commissioner found this discrepancy to be fatal to the case of the workman and hence rejected the application.