KRIPAL SINGH Vs. RAJENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.8.2003 passed by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act, Labour Court, Indore in case No. 88/1999 WCNF whereby the application filed by the appellant for compensation on account of injuries sustained was dismissed, present appeal has been filed.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that appellant filed a claim case before the learned Court below alleging that on 23.5.1999 appellant was driving tanker bearing registration No. MP-09/KA/1577 which was owned by the respondent No. 1-A and B and insured with the respondent No. 2. It was alleged that on 23.5.1999 when the appellant was coming from Guna to Indore with Amardeep Singh, son of the appellant who was also travelling in the said tanker in the capacity of Cleaner, at that lime, offending vehicle met with an accident with the result Amardeep Singh died on spot and appellant sustained grievous injuries. Since the offending vehicle was involved and appellant was employed with the respondent No. 1, therefore, it was prayed that claim case be allowed and compensation be awarded. The claim case was contested by the respondent No. 2 on various grounds including on the ground that appellant is responsible for the accident. It was prayed that claim case be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Court below dismissed the claim case against which the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order passed by learned Court below is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set-aside. It is submitted that learned Court below dismissed the claim case on the ground that for compensation on account of death of Amardeep Singh, appellant filed claim case before Claims Tribunal wherein it was found that accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the appellant. It is submitted that this cannot be a ground for dismissal of the claim case filed by the appellant. It is submitted that whether appellant was at fault or not, is not the requirement of law under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. It is submitted that findings recorded by MACT are having no binding force for deciding the compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant. It is submitted that appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and the impugned order passed by learned Court below be set-aside.