SAHIRA BANO Vs. BAWA RAM AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner') rejecting application of the petitioners for the grant of compensation on account of the death of Jan Mohammad Khan, allegedly while under the employment of respondent company, this appeal has been preferred with a prayer for setting aside the impugned order and for grant of the compensation under law.

(2.) ACCORDING to the averments made in the petition, it was alleged that the deceased Jan. Mohammad was employed by the respondent as labourer who met with an accident on March 1, 1980 while in the employment of the respondent. It was stated that the monthly wages of the deceased worker were Rs. 500/- and that the petitioners were entitled to the relief of the amount claimed by them. After taking the evidence of the parties, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the petitioners were not entitled to the grant of compensation as, according to him, accident had occurred not during the employment of the respondent and that the petitioners were entitled to the grant of claim under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act from the Tribunal constituted thereunder.

(3.) MS. Kour, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has raised apreliminary objection that as no substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was involved, the appeal was liable to be dismissed. She has referred to Rajinder Singh v. Malki Ram, 1978 ACJ 222 (Jandk); Vijay Ram v. Janak Raj, 1981 ACJ 84 (Jandk); Madan Mohan Verma v. Mohan Lal, (1983-II-LLJ-322) (Allahabad); and General Dealers Ltd. ' v. Ballavnarain Badrinarain, AIR 1955 NUC 2861, in support of her contention. In Rajinder Singh v. Malki Ram, (supra), the claim petition preferred by the heirs of the deceased workman was accepted and this Court refused to interfere with the finding of fact holding, "misappreciation of evidence or insufficiency of evidence is not a question of law though the absence of evidence is". In Madan Mohan Verma v. Mohan Lal, (supra), a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court rejected the plea of the employer, holding that the findings of the Commissioner were based upon evidence led in the case which were not vitiated by any error of law or of jurisdiction. In Vijay Ram v. Janak Raj, (supra), the appeal of the employer against the award of the Commissioner under the Act was dismissed with modification after holding that no substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 30 of the Act was involved in the case. In General Dealers Ltd. v. Ballavnarain Badrinarain, (supra) a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court went through the evidence led in the case to find out as to whether the same had been properly appreciated to determine as to whether any question of law was involved in the case or not. It was reiterated that though mis-appreciation of evidence or insufficiency of evidence is not a question of law, yet, absence of the evidence is.