MANISHA Vs. PARTAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short the Act) is directed against the order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner), dated 26.3.2001 in case No. 15 of 1995 whereby he has dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants.

(2.) THE claimants, who are the widow, minor daughter and parents of deceased Raju, filed a claim petition claiming compensation under the Act. According to them the deceased was employed with respondent Pratap Singh and Mohinder Singh for breaking of stones in their mines. It is further the case of the appellant that on 9.8.1995 at about 8.30 a.m. a huge stone fell down and hit the head of the petitioner while he was working in the mines. He received a head injury and was immediately taken to the Primary Health Center, Kamrau. The doctor at the P.H.C. referred him to the Civil Hospital at Paonta Sahib. While he was being taken to Paonta he died as a result of the injury sustained by him.

(3.) AT the very outset I may deal with the preliminary objections raised by Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate, that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal and, therefore, the appeal should be dismissed as such. In this behalf Mr. Gupta has referred to a number of authorities including United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chanchala Devi and Anr. ; Manoj Kumar Behera v. Dilip Kumar Das 1994 (1) ACC 50; Chowgule and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt. Felicidade Rodrigues 1970 Goa 127; Smt. Rajiyabi Cosman Sayi and Anr. v. Mackinon Machinazie and Co. Pvt. Ltd. 1970 Bombay 278; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Maku Mabakul Khan and Anr. ; Manager Sericulture Filatures, Jammu v. Shri Mansa Ram and Ors. 1976 LIC 957; Shantaram Govind Kamat v. Rama Ragunath Amonkar 1976 LIC 220. In my opinion I need not refer to all these judgments because I have dealt with this question with specific reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajeshwari v. Puran Indoria in FAO No. 64 of 2001, decided on 27th September, 2005. It is no doubt true that an appeal under Section 30 of the Act only lies on a substantial question of law. However, total misreading and misappreciation of evidence would also amount to raising a substantial question of law.