NOJI DEVI Vs. RAJIV BHARGAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by appellant Smt.Noji Devi W/o Shri Himmat Singh aggrieved by the order of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Beawar dated 21/3/2003 whereby, claim petition filed by the appellant for grant of compensation on account of death of her son Gopal Rawat due to electrocution while working with the respondent, was rejected.

(2.) SHRI J.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that deceased Gopal Rawat was working as workman in the hotel of the respondent and he was also doing the domestic work. His salary was Rs.1,000/- per month in addition to having the facilities of diet and residence. He was working with the respondent for 1 1/2 years prior to his death. His age at the time of death was 20 years. While Gopal Rawat was repairing the cooler of the respondent on the direction of the employer on 6/6/2001, suddenly electric current started flowing in the cooler, as a result of which, he got electric shock and died on the spot. Respondent took him to the J.L.N. Hospital and FIR was also lodged with Police Station Beawar Sadar bearing FIR No.13/2001 at the instance of the doctor of JLN Hospital, Ajmer, wherein same reason has been mentioned of his death. Learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner has very hypothetically rejected the claim case of the appellant. Learned counsel invited the attention of the court towards the opinion of the medical jurist quoted in the award, who opined that the "cause of death could not be ascertained though the possibility of death due to convulsion disorders cannot be ruled out". It was argued that this opinion has no meaning because post-mortem of the deceased was conducted on 6/6/2001 in which it was mentioned that cause of death will be given after chemical examination and receipt of the pathological report of the viscera. Learned counsel argued that appellant is a poor lady and that deceased was the only son, who during his life time would have support her. Opinion that has been subsequently expressed by the medical jurist is totally meaningless because in the FIR lodged by the doctor, he has categorically stated that the deceased was brought to the hospital by Rajiv Bhargava and informed that he died while repairing the cooler due to electric shock. This was the first available version and the medical officer cannot be expected to have any bias against the respondent. He would speak the truth, which what has been recorded by the learned Commissioner.

(3.) THE appeal thus is allowed. Record be remitted back to the Commissioner Workmen Commissioner, Beawar forthwith.