SANTOSHI & OTHERS Vs. SUDARSHAN KUMAR & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal stands directed against the rendition of the Sub Divisional Officer (c)-cum-Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Sub Division Shimla (for short "the Commissioner") of 9.7.2008 in Case No. 5/2001 whereby he dismissed an application preferred before him for assessment of compensation under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short "the Act).

(2.) Uncontrovertedly, the demise of deceased Chandermani stood begotten in sequel to his sustaining multiple injuries in an accident which occurred at Baldeyan Thailla Road on 27.6.2001. Undisputedly his demise occurred during the course of his performing his duties as a driver in vehicle bearing No. HP-07-4520 in capacity whereof he stood engaged by respondent No.1 its owner. During the course of his employment under respondent No.1 he sustained fatal injuries in an accident involving the vehicle aforesaid. The apposite petition instituted before the learned Commissioner was initially by appellant No.1 herein (for short 'the petitioner No.1') who contended of hers standing related to the deceased as his widow. The mother, brothers and father respectively of deceased Chandermani stood impleaded in the array of petitioners on the apposite application for their impleadment standing allowed by the Commissioner. A contention is raised before this Court on their behalf qua theirs being dependant upon the income reared by the deceased from his standing engaged by respondent No.1 as a driver in the vehicle aforesaid. Preeminently as afore-stated petitioners No.2 to 5 and respondent No.3 herein stood not initially arrayed as petitioners alongwith petitioner No.1 in the petition instituted before the learned Commissioner by petitioner No.1. Their impleadment occurred only on an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. standing allowed by the learned Commissioner. However, the mere factum of the learned Commissioner permitting theirs being added or arrayed in the array of petitioners would not per se relieve them of their enjoined obligation of proving the factum of theirs being dependent upon the income reared by the deceased from his avocation as a driver in the ill-fated vehicle. Leaving aside the factum of theirs not discharging the onus cast upon them to prove their dependency upon the income reared by the deceased, they even omitted to institute apposite pleadings before the learned Commissioner portraying therein of theirs being dependent upon the income of the deceased as stood reared by the latter from his avocation as a driver in the ill-fated vehicle. In sequel, the learned Commissioner did not commit any gross fallacy in concluding of the mere impleadment of the aforesaid in the array of petitioners alongwith Santoshi Devi hence, disentitling them to claim assessment of compensation in their favour rather the aforesaid conclusion formed by the Commissioner holds immense legal worth especially when they omitted to institute apposite pleadings before him besides obviously omitted to discharge the ensuing onus as may hence have stood enjoined upon them qua theirs being dependent upon the income of the deceased whereupon alone compensation was assessable in their favour.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contends of the refusal on the part of the learned Commissioner to assess compensation in favour of Gulabo Devi is bereft of tenacity.