NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. MADAN LAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged order dated 04.07.2008, passed by learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. in case No. 9/2006, titled as Sh. Madan Lal Sharma vs. Smt. Parmeshwari Devi and another, vide which, the claim petition filed by respondent No. 1 herein before the learned Commissioner stood decided in the following terms:-

(2.) This appeal was admitted on 23.07.2010 and on 29.06.2017 following substantial questions of law were framed for adjudication thereof:-

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the order passed by learned Commissioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law as learned Commissioner has erred in not appreciating that there was no evidence on record to demonstrate that there was a relationship of employee and employer between the claimant and respondent No. 1. She has further argued that in fact it was concealed from the learned Commissioner by the claimant and respondent No. 1 therein that they happened to be son and mother, respectively. She submits that this cast grave clouds over the veracity of the claim and claimant did not approach the learned Commissioner with clean hands. She has further argued that the objections which were taken in the reply which was filed by the present appellant before the learned Commissioner with regard to the maintainability of the claim petition, collusion, as well as with regard to validity of the licence possessed by the claimant at the time while he was driving the vehicle in issue when it met with the accident, were neither addressed nor redressed in the order passed by the learned Commissioner. On the basis of these submissions, she prays that as there was nothing on record to demonstrate that the claimant and respondent No. 1 were employee and employer, respectively, the order passed by the learned Commissioner is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. She has also argued that the claimant did not produce an iota of evidence on record to demonstrate as to what was purportedly the monthly wages of the claimant and this important aspect of the matter has been totally ignored by the learned Commissioner.