BABITA DEVI & OTHERS Vs. CHANDERMANI & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned award of 21.12.2009, rendered upon case No. 3 of 2008, by the learned Commissioner, Exercising Powers under Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short "the Commissioner"), whereby he dismissed the claim petition, preferred therebefore by the claimants.

(2.) Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court admits the instant appeal on the following substantial questions of law:-

(3.) Apparently, testification(s) stand rendered by DW-1, in respect of deceased Surjeet Singh, standing employed by him, as a driver upon the relevant offending vehicle, also emanations occur therein, of, at the relevant time, of, occurrence of the illfated mishap, the aforesaid deceased manning driver(s) seat thereof. However, the aforesaid testifications,' are, not sufficient to make a firm conclusion, that, the trite statutory factum, of, at the relevant time, the deceased holding employment under respondent No.1, hence standing cogently proven, reasons' for so concluding are anvilled upon (a) the FIR being recorded six months prior to the institution of the claim petition. (b) the FIR though making echoings, of, the deceased, at the relevant time manning the driver(s) seat of the offending vehicle, yet it not making any articulations qua that stage, his holding employment under respondent No.1. (c) rather the trite factum of a relationship of master and servant at the relevant stage subsisting, inter-se respondent No.1 and the deceased, is dispelled by a narration borne in the apposite FIR, of, respondent No.1 while being a BDC member, his on the relevant day proceeding alongwith the owner of Maruti Car No. HP-16- 2137, in the latter car, for, attending a meeting of the Congress Party, scheduled at Rajgarh. The lack of information in the FIR, in, respect of the trite statutory factum of the deceased at the relevant time holding employment under respondent No.1, as a driver in the offending vehicle, renders the subsequent thereto instituted claim petition to be a sequel of inter-se collusion vis-à- vis the claimants' with respondent No.1. Even if assumingly, if the deposition rendered in his examination-in-chief, by DW-1, wherein he echoes of his at the relevant time, engaging the deceased as a driver upon the offending vehicle, does countervail, the effect of the aforesaid inferences, yet, for the testification rendered by DW-1 to hold a firm efficacy, he was enjoined to adduce into evidence the apposite receipts revealing, his, evidently defraying wages to the deceased. However, the aforesaid best documentary evidence, holding, firm recitals therein, of, at the relevant time, the respondent No.1 hence employing the deceased as a driver upon the offending vehicle, stood not, adduced into evidence. Sequel thereof is that the trite statutory factum of the deceased, at the relevant time, holding, employment under respondent No.1, remaining not cogently proven. In aftermath, the effect of the admission made by respondent No.1 in his examination-in-chief, of, at the relevant time his employing the deceased a driver upon the vehicle, is rendered worthless, moreso, when Babita Devi, the legal representative of deceased Surjeet Singh admits in her cross-examination of hers making a statement borne in Ext. R-1, to the officials of the Insurance Company, wherein communications, occur of, deceased holding employment as an enlisted contractor with the P.W.D. Substantial questions of law stand answered accordingly.