BADRI LAL Vs. MANBHAR BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') is directed against the order 29.11.02 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Kota (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') in Claim Petition NO. 50/2000, whereby the Commissioner has dismissed the claim petition of the appellant -claimant. IN the instant case, it appears that the appellant -claimant had filed the claim petition alleging inter -alia that he was the driver of the jeep in question belonging to the respondent NO. 1 Smt. Manbhar Bai and was getting monthly salary of Rs. 3,000/ - and that he received injuries on account of the accident which took place on 12.7.98 when he was driving the said jeep and when the said collided with the tree. According to the appellant, the respondent No. 1 being the owner of the vehicle and the respondent NO. 2 being the insurer, he was entitled to get the compensation under the provisions of the said Act.

(2.) THE said claim petition was supported by the respondent NO. 1 stating inter -alia that the appellant was her employee and the vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 2. However, the said claim petition was resisted by the respondent No. 2 Insurance Company denying the allegations made in the claim petition, more particularly about the relationship of the employee and employer between the appellant and the respondent No. 1, who were the husband and the wife respectively. The Commissioner after appreciating the evidence on record dismissed the claim petition vide the impugned order.

(3.) IN the instant case, it is not disputed that the appellant and the respondents No. 1 are the husband and wife respectively and that at the time of the alleged accident, the appellant was driving the jeep in question which was registered in the name of respondent No. 1. Having regard to the relationship between the appellant and the respondent No. 1 being that of husband and wife, the story of the appellant that he was the employee of his wife could not be believed. The Commissioner has rightly appreciated the evidence for holding that the appellant having failed to establish the existence of the relationship of the employer and employee between him and the respondent NO. 1, his claim petition under the said Act was not maintainable under the law and the Commissioner has rightly dismissed the same. The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant to claim the compensation under the M.V. Act also could not be accepted for the simple reason that the claimant is required to exercise the option for filing the claim either in the M.V. Act or under the Workmen's Compensation Act, as per Section 167 of the M.V. Act. The appellant having exercised his option by filing the claim petition under the said Act, he could not be awarded the compensation treating the petition under the M.V. Act. In the case of Gujarat High Court relied upon by the learned counsel, the Insurance Company had agreed to pay the compensation having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, which case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed.