High CourtsSingle Bench(2023) 09 J&K CK 0006

Girdhari Lal vs Satinder Singh And Ors

Jammu And Kashmir High Court · Decided on 4 September 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjay Dhar, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Application No. 31 Of 2015

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 344 words

Sanjay Dhar, J

1.

The petitioner has challenged order dated 08.11.2014 passed by Commissioner Employee’s Compensation Act (Assistant Labour Commissioner, Udhampur), whereby claim petition of the petitioner, arising on account of death of his son, namely, Sham Lal, who was reported to have died while working as a conductor with Truck bearing No. JK02K-4537, has been dismissed.

2.

The learned Commissioner has dismissed the claim petition of the petitioners on the ground that father of the deceased, namely, Sh. Girdhari Lal (petitioner herein) has, during his cross examination before the Authority, stated that prior to the accident, his deceased son used to ply matador and that two more witnesses of the claimants, namely, Mohan Lal and Ashok Kumar admitted during cross examination that the deceased has died due to jaundice.

3.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the record summoned from the authority.

4.

From a perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner-Girdhari Lal has stated in his cross examination that his deceased son was plying matador prior to the accident but that does not mean that the deceased was not working as a conductor with the vehicle in question at the relevant time of the accident. Besides this, I could not find any statement or any material on record that would have remotely suggest that the deceased had died on account of jaundice.

5.

In view of the above, findings of the learned Commissioner are not based upon any evidence or material on record, as such, the same are unsustainable in the law and deserve to be set aside.

6.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner is set aside. The case is remanded to the Commissioner for deciding the same on its own merits after taking note of the evidence led by the parties. The learned Commissioner shall effect service of fresh notices upon the parties before deciding the case.

7.

Disposed of.

8.

Copy of this order be sent to the learned Commissioner.