PADAM SINGH Vs. RAJESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in this appeal is "Whether legal representatives of the injured-claimant are entitled to prosecute the claim petition after death of the injured during pendency of the claim petition?" This question needs to be answered in this appeal.

(2.) Facts in brief of the case are that the injured-Rajesh submitted a claim petition under the provision of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ('Act of 1923', for short) before the Commissioner of Wrokemen's Compensation, Kota (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') stating therein that he was employed with the contractor for completion of work at the premises of the appellant-Padam Singh. During the course of the employment/work, he sustained certain grievous injuries, fractures and permanent disability, hence he suffered loss of income. A prayer was made in the claim petition that appropriate amount of compensation be awarded for the injuries, permanent disability and loss of income suffered by him.

(3.) The appellant-non-claimant Padam Singh filed reply and submitted that the injured Rajesh was not working in his employment and prayed for rejection of the claim petition. Non-claimant-respondent No. 2-Bhawani Shankar submitted reply and denied the averments of the claim petition and denied the factum of relationship of employer and employee and prayed for rejection of the claim petition.