CHETAN SINGH Vs. GANESH LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an employer's appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') and is directed against an order of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Udaipur dated January 24, 1983, by which the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 18,000/ - as compensation; Rs. 5,00/ - as interest thereon and Rs. 86/ - as costs (in all a sum of Rs. 23,486/ -) to respondent No. 1 Ganeshlal.

(2.) BRIEFLY re -called, the relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the deceased Mohanlal (aged about 23 years at the time of his death) was employed as a truck driver by the appellant Chetan Singh. The appellant had taken a contract for consolidation of earth on 'Somar Kala Aarna Project' in district Dungarpur. In the execution of the said work, Chetan Singh employed some tractors, one of which was RSK 1146. He had employed the deceased Mohan Lal as a driver on the said tractor on the monthly wages of Rs. 300/ -. At about 5.00 p.m. on February 28, 1978, while Mohan Lal was driving the said tractor to toe a truck, the tractor turned up -side down. Mohan Lal fell down and was rolled -over and crushed by the tractor. It resulted in his death on the spot. It was alleged that the workman Mohan Lal met death by the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the appellant Chetan Singh. On the death of Mohan Lal, his father Ganesh Lal presented an application in the prescribed form before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, claiming therein a sum of Rs. 18,000/ - as compensation. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Somar Kala Aamla Project and the appellant Chetan Singh were impleaded as the persons liable for the payment of compensation. Notices were issued to both of them by the Commissioner. Both of them resisted the application and denied their liability to pay compensation to the petitioner Ganesh Lal. According to the Executive Engineer, the deceased Mohan Lal was not in the employment of the Irrigation Department. As such, the Irrigation Department was not liable to pay any compensation. The consolidation of earth work was given on contract to Chetan Singh. The deceased Mohan Lal was employed by Chetan Singh and that he met the death due to the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with Chetan Singh. It was further stated that Mohan Lal had illegally took the tractor to toe down a private truck. This work of toeing the Truck was not connected with the work of the consolidation of earth. The appellant Chetan Singh, in his reply, denied all the averments made in the application. It was denied by him that the deceased Mohan Lal was in his employment on February 28, 1978 or at any time during his life time. It was one Gopal who was employed by him as a driver on his tractor RSK 1146. It was further stated that the applicant Ganesh Lal was not competent to submit the application for compensation as he was not dependent on the deceased Mohan Lal at the time of the accident. The Commissioner raised the necessary issues and recorded the evidence of the parties. The parties adduced evidence both oral and documentary in support of their respective allegations and counter -allegations. On the conclusion of the inquiry, the Commissioner recorded his findings as under:

(3.) I have heard Mr. D.S. Shishodia, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Pradeep Paliwal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant Ganesh Lal and Mr. S.K. Mathur, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State. I have also carefully gone through the record of the case.