NIRMALA AND OTHERS Vs. KAUSHALAYA DEVI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claimants in case No.1 of 2005, instituted under Sec. 22 of Workmen's Compensation Act are in appeal before this Court as they are aggrieved from the Order dated 31.1.2006 passed by learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Sub Divisional Magistrate), Nalagarh, District Solan, whereby the petition they preferred has been dismissed on the ground that they failed to produce the evidence to the effect that their predecessor-in-interest Nirmal Singh died on account of exposer ultimately turned into high fever on account of driving the truck without its windscreen. Also that postmortem report has not been produced in evidence.

(2.) As per the case admitted by respondent No.1, the owner of truck No.HP13-9377, deceased Nirmal Singh was employed as driver by her on the monthly wages of Rs. 4,000.00. Besides this, additionally a sum of Rs. 100.00 was being paid to him towards the daily allowance. He, therefore, was earning Rs. 7,000.00 per month. He drove the truck with consignment loaded therein from Nalagarh to Calcutta on 24.11.2003. He delivered the consignment at Calcutta on 27.11.2003. On way back, he loaded the truck from Cuysum-Giri Factory in Orissa to Paonta Sahib. When he was driving the truck within the territory of State of Bihar, some miscreants pelted stones thereon and as a result thereof windscreen of the truck got damaged being fully broken. The deceased driver has reported the incident to Amrik Singh, the husband of respondent No.1 and owner of the truck. Said Shri Amrik Singh, told the deceased to drive the truck in that condition itself and also that the windscreen will be replaced and other damage caused to the truck will be repaired at Nalagarh. He followed the instructions of said Shri Amrik Singh and brought the truck while driving the same without windscreen to Paonta Sahib on 3.12.2003. He unloaded the consignment at Paonta Sahib and brought the truck to Nalagarh where he reached at 9.00 p.m. He reached his native place at 11.00 p.m. At that time he was suffering from high fever. He was not even in a condition to speak. In the morning of 4.12.2003, his condition deteriorated considerably and before any medical aid could be provided to him, he died.

(3.) The compensation has been sought to be awarded on the ground that on account of driving the truck without windscreen, he was exposed to stress and strain and fell ill. The exposer resulted in high fever and before anything could be done to provide medical aid to him; he left for his heavenly abode. The cremation was also attended by the husband of respondent-owner. At the time of his death he allegedly was 31 years of age.