STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR Vs. AMAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS First Civil Miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment and award of respondent No. 2 dated September 19, 1994. Facts giving rise to this appeal are that respondent No. 1, Amar Chand, submitted his claim petition under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act alleging therein that he was working under the employment of appellant at Nadi Nallah Sharot for repairing work of the said Nallah. On February 5, 1992, during the course of his employment, he was hit by a stone, as a result of which, he suffered multiple injuries. The said injuries now have rendered him (respondent No. 1) permanently disabled from earning his livelihood. It has further been contended that the age of the respondent was forty five years and was earning Rs. 750/-as monthly wages at the time of the accident. He claimed Rs. 80,000/-as compensation for the disability suffered by him. This claim petition was; refuted by the appellant, who filed written statement cum objections to the claim petition on September 15, 1993. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 recorded the statement of witnesses and passed the award of Rs. 20,800/-as compensation in favour of respondent No. 1 and against the appellant. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) THE appellant has assailed the impugned award on various grounds both on law and on facts. Appellant has contended that the various provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and the Rules made thereunder have not been observed by respondent No. 2 while passing the award. His first contention is that, Section 10, which relates to giving of notice of the accident before preferring the claim, has not been observed. His second contention is that the Rules 28 and 32 of the Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924 have not been observed by respondent No. 2 while dealing with the case. Rule 28 relates to framing of issues in the case and Rule 32 perains to giving of finding on each and every issue framed. It has been contended in the appeal that non-observance of these Rules vitiates the whole award passed by respondent No. 2. Matter does not rest here. Appellant has raised some factual points also. He has contended that this is an imaginary claim filed by respondent No. 1, because he has never been engaged by appellant for doing the work as labourer, nor such work, as mentioned by respondent No. 1, was undertaken by the appellant during the period for which claim has been preferred. According to appellant, neither respondent No. 1 was engaged by him, nor any construction or the repair work was going on those days when the accident is being stated to have occurred. Thirdly, it is contended that the evidence adduced by the parties has not been appreciated in accordance with the requirements of law. The objections have been filed, which are considered to be the written statement of the appellant. Various pleas of law and facts have been raised by the appellant, as mentioned above.

(3.) IMPORTANT questions of law which arise for the adjudication in this case are :-