SUCHA RAM Vs. RAJINDER SINGH & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-Claimant Sucha Ram is in appeal before this Court. The complaint is that learned Commissioner, under the Workmen Compensation Act, (SDM), Nalagarh, District Solan, vide order dated 30.3.2007 passed in a petition under Section 22 of the Act (case No.7/200), has erroneously denied the award of compensation to him.

(2.) The appellant-claimant himself is the driver of truck No.HP12-3693. Owner of the truck is none-else, but his son Rajinder Kumar, the first respondent. In the petition, it has been alleged that on 17.1.2005, after loading the truck in the premises of Gauntermenn Peiper India Ltd. Bharatgarh, while in the process of setting the tarpaulin right on load portion of the truck, he fell down and sustained injuries. He was given first medical aid at Rajpura. Later on, he went to CHC Nalagarh on 4.3.2005 for his treatment. According to the appellant-claimant, the injuries he received by way of fall from the truck have resulted in permanent disability and now there is complete loss of earning. While he has claimed his age as 48 years, the wages per month is stated to be Rs. 4,000/- in addition to Rs. 100/- as daily allowance. It is with these submissions he has filed the claim petition before the learned Commissioner below for award of just and reasonable compensation.

(3.) The first respondent has admitted the case as set out in the claim petition in toto. The petition, however, was resisted and contested by the insurer respondent No.2 on the grounds inter-alia that the appellant was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and also that had he been met with an accident, the insured-respondent No.1 should have given intimation in this regard to respondent No.2. The insured-respondent No.1 has not filed any claim petition and as such the accident allegedly occurred on 17.1.2005 is denied being wrong. It is pointed out that the appellant-claimant is father of the insured respondent No.1 and not driver of the truck. As per the prescription slip of a hospital at Nalagarh, the appellant got himself treated on 4.3.2005, whereas the injuries were allegedly sustained by him by way of fall on 17.1.2005. It is also denied that the monthly salary of the appellant was Rs. 4,000/- per month and daily allowance as Rs. 100/- per day.