AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appeal and the cross objections are directed against the judgment and award dated 23.10.2009 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur District, First Jaipur (for short 'the Commissioner') in claim petition No.W.C.C.N.F.153/2009, whereby the learned Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.2,49,576/- as compensation to the claimant.
Brief facts giving rise to this appeal and cross-objections are that as per the claimant, he was appointed as driver by the respondent No.1 to drive his truck No.RJ-14-GB-3482. On 02.07.2008 the injured-claimant was coming from Bicholi after loading goods in the said truck at about 3.00 A.M when the appellant reached near Khirni Phatak Pulia, a truck bearing No.HR-38N-9782 coming from behind collided with the truck of the appellant, resulting in claimant sustaining serious injuries. It was also stated that the appellant was working under the employment of respondent No.1 and the said accident occurred during the course of his employment. At the time of accident, the appellant was aged about 29 years and was getting Rs.4,500/- per month as salary. In the claim petition, the claimant-appellant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.5,03,808/- from the respondents. Respondent No.1 owner/employer did not appear despite service of notice upon him and an exparte order was passed against him.
The respondent No.2 Insurance Company filed a reply wherein the Insurance Company denied the averments made in the claim petition and it was stated that at the time of accident, the appellant-claimant was having no valid and effective driving license to drive the truck.
Necessary issues were framed by the learned Commissioner. The claimant-appellant produced an affidavit and also documentary evidence in support of his claim petition. The learned Commissioner decided issue Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5 in favour of the claimant-appellant and issue No.3 was partly decided in favour of claimant-appellant. While deciding the issue No.3, it was held by the learned Commissioner that the claimant-appellant failed to produce his driving license and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the Insurance Company was exonerated.
Hence, this appeal and cross-objections.
During the pendency of the appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was filed for taking on record the driving license of the appellant-claimant as additional evidence.
The copy of the driving license was provided to the respondent Insurance Company for its verification. The driving license of the claimant-appellant was verified and it was found to be genuine. An application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was filed by the Insurance Company for taking on record the verification report in compliance with the order dated 02.11.2018.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on the applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and on the appeal also.
For the reasons stated in the applications, both the applications are allowed and documents are taken on record as additional evidence. Since both the documents are admitted by both the parties, therefore, driving license is marked as (Ex.9) and verification report marked as (Ex.10), respectively.
Since the reason as to why issue No.3 was only partly decided in favour of the appellant was that he had not produced his driving license in evidence. However, during the pendency of the appeal the said driving license was taken on record as additional evidence and the same has not been disputed by the Insurance Company.
Therefore, the appellant-claimant is entitled to compensation so awarded by the court below and respondent No.2 Insurance Company and respondent No.1 owner/employer are hereby liable to pay the same and hence, directed to jointly and severally pay the amount of compensation to the appellant-claimant. The judgment passed by the court below is modified accordingly and appeal and cross-objections are allowed accordingly.