SOMA DEVI Vs. KUMARI BHARTI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal arises from the impugned order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. (for short the Commissioner ) rendered under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, (for short 'the Act') whereby he dismissed the petition preferred thereat by the dependent of deceased Krishan Kumar who met his end in a motor accident involving car bearing registration No. DL-4CA- 7237 whereon he stood purportedly engaged as a driver by deceased Rakesh Kumar who had purchased it from respondent No.3. Respondent No.1 and 4 are the LRs of deceased Rakesh Kumar. The Commissioner while returning findings on Issues No.2 and 3 against the dependent of deceased Krishan Kumar had yet proceeded to afford liberty to the dependent/claimant to institute a petition afresh against the original registered owner of the relevant car, who stood impleaded in the petition as respondent No.3.

(2.) The findings on issues No.2 and 3 stand visibly returned against the claimant/dependent. The findings recorded on issues No.2 and 3 by the Commissioner emanate on a gross mis-appreciation by him of the relevant material on record. Conspicuously when the counsel for the insurer while holding PW-1 to cross examination had put a suggestion to him qua Rakesh Kumar defraying to deceased Krishan Kumar wages per mensem quantified not in a sum of Rs.4000/- contrarily quantified in a sum of Rs.2000/- wherefrom the ensuable sequel warranting its eruption therefrom was hence of the insurer acquiescing to the deceased not only performing employment under deceased Rakesh Kumar as a driver in the relevant vehicle also his standing defrayed by his aforesaid employer salary quantified in a sum of Rs.2000/- per mensem.

(3.) The effect of the aforesaid pronouncement is of hence the learned Commissioner obviously erring in concluding qua Rakesh Kumar not employing deceased Krishan Kumar as a driver in the relevant vehicle nor his defraying to him any salary whereupon it declined relief qua the petitioner vis-a-vis deceased Rakesh Kumar whose LRs stand impleaded as respondents No.1 and 4 whereupon whom for reasons assigned hereinafter the apposite liability would stand fastened qua compensation determined vis-a-vis the claimant-dependent. Even though it stood aptly concluded by Commissioner qua deceased Krishan Kumar suffering his end in a Motor Vehicle accident involving the relevant vehicle yet it reiteratedly for reasons afore-stated inaptly concluded of the deceased not standing employed by Rakesh Kumar.