KAUSHALYA DEVI Vs. SATYAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition instituted against Order dated 7.10.2014 rendered by Employee Compensation Commissioner, Arki, District Solan, HP in Case No. 190/6 of 2013.

(2.) "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that petitioners have filed a claim petition on account of untimely death of Manoj Kumar. He was son of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners No. 2 and 3. He died during the course of employment with respondent No. 1 while working as driver of ill fated vehicle No. HP -51 -3461 on 23.10.2006. Respondent No. 1, while filing reply to the claim petition has taken a plea that the ill fated vehicle was sold to deceased Manoj Kumar. Thus, he never remained employee of respondent No. 1. Respondent No.1 has moved an application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for proving documents by way of secondary evidence. It was specifically averred in the application that he was not the owner of the vehicle in question at the time of accident. He had sold vehicle to Shri Manoj Kumar for a consideration of Rs. 35,000/ - on 1.4.2006 vide agreement/ document which was duly executed. A sum of Rs. 13,000/ - was paid on the same day and remaining amount of Rs. 22,000/ - was to be paid by 6.5.2006. Manoj Kumar had issued post dated cheque dated 5.5.2006 amounting to Rs. 22,000/ - drawn on Jogindra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Danoghat in his favour on the same day i.e. on 1.4.2006. Cheque was returned to Manoj Kumar after receiving balance amount of Rs. 22,000/ - on 3.5.2006 in cash. Necessary documents i.e. Form 29 and 30, affidavits etc. were executed by him and delivered to Manoj Kumar on 3.5.2006. Application was resisted by the petitioners by filing detailed reply. According to the averments contained in the reply, respondent No. 1 was registered owner of the vehicle at the time of accident. Manoj Kumar was appointed as a Driver. He died in the accident while driving the car. He has never purchased car for a consideration of Rs. 35,000/ - vide agreement dated 1.4.2006. He has never put his signatures on the documents and any signatures put on said documents are forged and procured as there is no evidence/ receipts on record regarding the payment of alleged consideration made by Manoj Kumar. Neither Manoj Kumar paid Rs. 13,000 on 1.4.2006 nor Rs. 22,000/ - on 3.5.2006. Respondent No. 1 has managed the said cheque by way of fraudulent means. There was no evidence on record to suggest that possession of the vehicle in question alongwith documents was delivered to Manoj Kumar. He has never executed alleged documents. It is specifically denied that the cheque dated 5.5.2006 was issued to respondent No. 1 by Manoj Kumar. It is also denied that original documents regarding sale dated 1.4.2006, Form 29 and 30 and affidavit were executed and respondent No. 1 had delivered them to Manoj Kumar. Employee Compensation Commissioner allowed the application vide impugned order dated 7.10.2014. Hence, this petition.

(3.) ACCIDENT took place on 23.10.2006. MAC Petition No. 41 -S/2 of 08/06 was instituted on 30.11.2006 by claimants against respondent under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act before MACT -II, Solan. Learned MACT framed issue No. 3 on 17.10.2008: -