RAMPEARY DOSADIN Vs. J BHATTACHARYYA AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal on behalf of one Rampeary Dosadin, the widow of one Chancier Ram, who admittedly fell from a lorry in Strand Road on 17-5-1951 and died on 18th May following. The widow of the deceased made an application for compensation on the footing that her deceased husband had been employed under the respondents and that the nature of his occupation was such that he was workman within the meaning of the Act. His wages were alleged to have been Rs. 60/- per month and on the basis of that rate of wages, compensation of the amount of Rs. 1800/- was asked for.

(2.) It was not denied by the respondents that on the day of the occurrence Chander Ram was riding a lorry belonging to them and that he had suffered a fall from that lorry which had ultimately caused his death. What was pleaded, however, was that Chander Ram was not in their employment at all, but was an employee of the Railway and Telegraph Stores and he was simply being given a lift on the day in question by one of the respondent' own coolies to whom he was known. It was contended, in the second place, that in any event Chander Ram was not a workman within the definition of the Act.

(3.) The Commissioner framed two issues which he placed in a somewhat illogical order. The second issue, which should have been the first, asked whether the deceased had been employed under the respondents. The first issue, which should have been the second, asked whether the deceased was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(1)(n), Workmen's Compensation Act.