CHET RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is maintained by the appellant/petitioner-claimant (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner'), under Sec. 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, against judgment dtd. 25/3/2013, passed by learned Commissioner Exercising Powers under Employees Compensation Act, Court No. II, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in Case No. 1-2 of 2011/05, with a prayer to quash and set-aside the aforesaid judgment.

(2.) Succinctly, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the petitioner (appellant herein) maintained a petition under the Employees (Workmen) Compensation Act, 1923, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act'), before the learned Commissioner, Exercising Power under Employees Compensation Act, Court No. II, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner below'), whereby he sought compensation from the respondents for the injury allegedly suffered by him during the course of the employment. As per the petitioner, he was working as daily waged Beldar and deployed in HPPWD Sec. Badmain, Sub Division Sunni. The petitioner alleged that on 29/12/2004, when he was going home, after discharging his duty, around 05:45 p.m. he met with an accident, due to which he remained unconscious for some time and when he regained consciousness he found himself lying on the road. His left eye and teeth/mouth were injured badly and blood was oozing out from his mouth. The petitioner was admitted in IGMC, Shimla on 29/12/2004 in the emergency, where he remained under observation, subsequently he was shifted to Dental Hospital, where his dislocated jaw was operated. As per the petitioner he remained admitted in the hospital w.e.f. 29/12/2004 to 22/1/2005 and his children spent Rs.70,000.00 on his treatment by raising loan from their near, dear and friends.

(3.) The petitioner further averred in his petition before the learned Commissioner below that on 12/1/2005, through a registered letter, he made a request to Assistant Engineer, HPPWD, Sunni to provide compensation to him under the Act/Insurance, Janta Accidental Scheme for his expenses for medicine, but neither any compensation was paid to him nor he heard anything from the office of Assistant Engineer. He further averred that after the accident for one and half months, he was unable to open his mouth. He also averred that he had five unmarried children, who were dependent on him, and it was difficult for him to meet out daily requirements as well as the expenses on medicine for recuperation.