AMNA BEGUM Vs. RAM PRAKASH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 against the order dated 4.3.2014 passed by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Shahjahanpur, by which he has rejected the claim petition filed by the appellant.

(2.) The appellant, who claims herself to be the wife of late Azaz Ahmad, filed claim petition before the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation claiming compensation from the respondent on the ground that her husband late Azaz Ahmad was in employment with the respondent as a driver and on 5.6.2010 when he was on duty in Bus, bearing registration No. U.P. 75-7903 as a driver, he died. He was aged about 35 years. The statements of the appellant and Mohd. Ayub were recorded as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, however, in the absence of signature of Presiding Officer, the said statements have not been treated as an evidence.

(3.) The respondent filed written statement, stating therein, that late Azaz Ahmad left the service 10-12 days before the date of alleged incident and said vehicle was being driven by Asif Khan, son of Buddha Khan, and had denied that late Azaz Ahmad was the driver on the date of his death and he died in the course of employment. The statement of Sri Asif Khan was also recorded in which he categorically stated that on 5.6.2010 he was engaged as a driver of the vehicle No. U.P. 75-7903 and was being engaged 10 days before as a driver. On the instruction of the owner of the vehicle, he had gone along with the Barat of Sri Ram Chandra Pandit to Faridpur District Bareilly with the bus in which Surjeet was the conductor and when the Barati had gone for breakfast, he had also gone along with them and when he came back, he found that Azaz Ahmad was lying in drunken stage and when he has seen that Azaz Ahmad was dead. He stated that Azaz Ahmad was not engaged as a driver in the said bus nor he died in the course of employment. On the basis of evidence on record, the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation arrived to the conclusion that Azaz Ahmad was not in employment as a driver with the respondent on the date of alleged death and the said death was not in the course of employment and accordingly claim petition has been rejected.