MANGALA BEN Vs. DILIP MOTWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the claimant Mangala Ben, the mother of the deceased Hansmukh Manilal being aggrieved of the award dated 7.11.1997 passed by Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Indore, in Claim Case No. 45 of 1996 whereby the application for compensation was dismissed.

(2.) The case of the applicant, in brief, was that her son Hansmukh Manilal was an employee of non-applicant-respondent Dilip Motwani and was earning Rs. 2,000 as pay and Rs. 1,500 as allowance per month. On 17.11.1996 during the course of his employment, he was coming from Bombay to Indore driving Maruti car No. MP 09 HA 4744 on National Highway, when he came near Chandwad Police Station, truck No. WB 03 6075 came from front side at high speed rashly and negligently and dashed against the car, as a result of which Hansmukh died on the spot. The claimant mother filed claim petition under section 20 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') and claimed Rs. 2,15,000 as compensation with interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum. The respondent-non- applicant Dilip Motwani remained absent and was proceeded ex pane. The respondent insurance company filed written statement in oppugnation. It challenged the jurisdiction of the Commissioner and pleaded that the deceased was not the employee of non-applicant, owner Dilip Motwani who had mentioned in his O.D. claim that the deceased Hansmukh Manilal was not his employee, he was his friend. The learned Commissioner after recording evidence held that the claimant failed to prove that the deceased Hansmukh was workman in the employment of respondent-non- applicant, owner of the vehicle and dismissed the claim. It is this order that has been challenged before us.

(3.) Mr. Chhabra, learned counsel for the claimant, contended that the learned Commissioner fell in grave error in holding on the basis of Motor Claim Form (O.D. form) submitted by the respondent, owner of the Maruti car that the deceased was not in the employment of the respondent owner. On 6.11.1997 the owner himself submitted W.C. form, Exh. P1, wherein he made categorical statement that the deceased was serving with him as a driver and he met with accident while discharging his duty as his employee. The investigation report of the insurance company also supports this fact. Mr. Dhupar, learned counsel for the respondent insurance company submitted that the learned Commissioner rightly believed the O.D. form as it was submitted earlier in time. The W.C. form was afterthought. It was submitted by the owner to avoid his liability of payment of compensation to the deceased's L.Rs. He also submitted that this appeal is not maintainable as there is no substantial question of law involved in the matter.