KIRNA DEVI Vs. TALAB SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Commissioner under the workmenâ„¢s Compensation Act, has dismissed the claim petition preferred by the widow of the deceased. The petition was filed before the above authority. It was pleaded therein that Kuldeep Raj was engaged as a Labourer viz ; he was working on a Tractor Trolley attached with a vehicle bearing Registration No. JK02H/8975. the deceased received injuries, which resulted in his death on 28 -05 -1998. The accident had occurred on that very date. The deceased had gone to collect clay from Najwal. When the Trolley was being loaded a rock, came down. as indicated above, this caused bodily injury on Kuldeep Raj, as a result whereof he died. His widow filed a claim petition. This was rejected, interalia, on the plea that the claimant had filed to specify the Trolley number, the tractor number and the name of the owner thereof. It has also been observed that registration numbers were not given in the FIR. The description of the owner of the tractor given as Talab singh was found to be vogue, and it was on this premises that the respondents were absolved of the liability.

(2.) THE Legislation, which deals with awarding of compensation under the workmenâ„¢s Compensation act is not to be interpreted in a rigid manner as has been done by the Commissioner under the workmenâ„¢s Act. As per Counsel for the petitioner, the description vehicle was given. The tractor number has been mentioned in the FIR. the name of the Driver was also given. In any case, once the identity of the vehicle is identified by giving its registration number, then the other particulars are insignificant circumstances. These are matters on which investigation could be done by the Police authorities and the ownership of the vehicle could be very well be traced out . Once the registration number of the vehicle is given and that is found to be involved in the accident, then there was absolutely no justification to record a finding that the particulars given by the appellant were in sufficient to record a finding in favour of the claimant/appellant. The appellant when she appeared in the witness box had stated that her husband was working with respondent No. 1.

(3.) IT is not disputed that the vehicle in question stood insured with respondent No. 2. insurance Company.