DILIP ASHAR STONE COMPANY Vs. RATAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Employees' Compensation Commissioner, Kota (hereinafter 'the Commissioner') vide his judgment dated 10-10-2001 allowed the respondent-claimant's (hereinafter 'the claimant') claim under Section 22 of the Workmen' Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter 'the 1923 Act') as it obtained at the relevant time and awarded a sum of Rs.76,312/- inclusive of interest as compensation to the claimant for a purported injury suffered by him on 14-11-1997 while in the alleged employment of the appellant-non claimant (hereinafter 'the non claimant'). It was further directed that in the event the award amount of Rs.76,312/- was not deposited within thirty days of the judgment with the Commissioner, further interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum till the date of payment would be payable. Aggrieved, the non claimant has filed this appeal under Section 30 of the 1923 Act.

(2.) The claimant's case before the Commissioner was that while he was engaged as a loader on a dumper owned by the non claimant, on 14-11-1997 he suffered various injuries owing to an accident while loading goods on the dumper. It was stated that at the time relevant to the accident, the claimant was 40 years of age and earning Rs.1800/- per month as salary. Relying upon a disability certificate, evidencing 30% disability, compensation of Rs.35,803/- with interest thereon as also penalty for non payment of compensation within time as mandated in the 1923 Act was sought. The non claimant filed reply of denial to the claim. It was stated that neither the claimant was its employee nor did the claimant suffer any injury on 14-11-1997, as stated in the claim petition, arising from his employment. It was submitted that the non claimant firm had been closed for over five years prior to the alleged incident on 14-11-1997. The claim petition was false and to be dismissed, was the prayer of the non claimant.

(3.) On pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner framed four issues. The first related to the question as to whether the claimant was in the employment of the non claimant on 14-11-1997. The second issue was whether the claimant was injured in the course of his employment which had a causal link to the injuries when the claimant was 40 years of age and drawing wages at the rate of Rs.1800/- per month. The third issue related to the question of claimant's loss of earning capacity at 30% as agitated in the claim petition. Finally as the fourth issue, the Commissioner was to determine the question of relief. The claimant examined himself as a witness in support of his claim and exhibited his medical reports including the certificate of disability showing 30% disability purportedly suffered by the claimant in the accident. One Raju was also examined as Pw.2 in support of the claim. The non claimant on its part produced two witnesses Dw.1 Dilip Kumar and Dw.2 Mushtaq Ali denying the claim of the claimant's purported employment with the non claimant or salary paid to him exhibiting a certificate of the Commercial Taxes Department evidencing the closure of non claimant's business over five years prior to the date of the alleged accident.