LAWS(MPH)-2008-5-15

NASEEM Vs. LOKENDRA

Decided On May 13, 2008
NASEEM Appellant
V/S
LOKENDRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -BEING aggrieved by the order dated 6. 12. 2000, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, labour Court, Indore in Claim Case No. 16 of 1998 W. C. N. F. whereby, the claim petition filed by the appellants on account of death of Gurmukhsingh was dismissed, the present appeal has been filed. Appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that appellants filed a claim petition before learned court below alleging that appellants are l. Rs. of deceased Gurmukhsingh who was aged 37 years and was working as driver on a tanker bearing registration No. MP 09-7402 which was owned by respondent no. 1 and one Sattu alias Satyanarayan s/o Madanlal and insured with respondent no. 2. It was alleged that deceased was earning Rs. 2,000 p. m. as salary and Rs. 50 per day as travelling allowance. Further case of the appellant was that on 7. 12. 1997 deceased Gurmukhsingh was on his duty on the tanker and left for Mumbai. It was further alleged that on 12. 12. 1997 when gurmukhsingh was filling in the gas with hindustan Petroleum Co. Ltd. at Chembur, mumbai at that time Gurmukhsingh fell down in the office and sustained grievous injuries. Gurmukhsingh was brought to Sai baba Karunalaya for his treatment where he died. It was alleged that Gurmukhsingh died during the course of his employment. Therefore, respondents are liable for payment of compensation as offending vehicle was insured with respondent No. 2. It was prayed that the claim petition filed by the appellant be allowed and compensation be awarded.

(3.) THE claim petition was contested by both the respondents by filing separate written statement. So far as respondent No. 1 and one Sattu who happens to be brother of respondent No. 1 and was non-applicant no. 2 before the learned Tribunal are concerned, it was alleged that offending tanker is insured with respondent No. 2, therefore, in case of liability it is the respondent No. 2 insurance company, who is liable for payment of compensation.