AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Murgesen, J.—This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree 26.07.2007, passed in W.C. No. 349 of 2004 by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation (Deputy Commissioner for Labour), Madurai.
By consent of both sides, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is taken for final disposal at the state of admission itself.
Before the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation the appellant is the applicant and the respondents are the opposite parties.
The brief case of the applicant is as follows:
On 22.08.2004 at about 2.30 A.M., when the deceased Chandran @ Chandra Sekaran was working as a driver in the 3rd respondent''s Lorry bearing registration number TN-28-2584 which was proceeding towards Madurai from Thanjavur. While the lorry was nearing Chinnaiah Sathram the above said lorry was capsized due to which the driver was thrown out and sustained fatal injuries on head and died on the spot. Alangudi Police has registered a case in Cr. No. 397 of 2004 under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of I.P.C. The said lorry was insured with the 2nd opposite party. The deceased was aged 45 years and was earning a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month at the time of accident. Due to the sudden demise of the deceased, the applicant has lost his income and love and affection. So, he filed the application claiming a compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- before the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation.
Before the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, on the side of the applicant, applicant examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to 6 and on the side of the 2nd opposite party R.W.1 was examined Exs.R.1 to 3 were marked. There was no oral or documentary evidence adduced on the side of the 1st and 3rd opposite parties.
On consideration of the evidence on both sides, the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation dismissed the application.
Challenging the said award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, this appeal has been filed by the applicant.
In the memorandum of appeal the following substantial question of law were raised by the appellant:
(a) Whether the conclusion of Learned Deputy Commissioner for Labour that Registration number of the vehicles are different is legally sustainable in the absence of framing specific issue in this regard?
Point: Learned Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation dismissed the application on the ground that the lorry number is not given properly. Learned Counsel for the second respondent would submit that the entire things are not considered by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation. When the claimant has not furnished the correct particulars, then they cannot find fault with the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation. It is the definite stand of the applicant that her husband was working as driver under the first respondent. Then after filing the amendment petition, the applicant has taken a different stand that he was working under the third respondent. So, the claimant is not definite about the employment of her husband.
Further, in the claim petition, it is the stand of the applicant that TN-28-2584 is the vehicle involved in the accident, in which her husband was working as a driver and the first respondent is his employer. I perused the F.I.R. In the F.I.R., in column 7 it is stated that the vehicle involved in the accident is TN-28-2584. But in column 12 it is stated that the vehicle involved in the accident is TN-25-2584. Learned Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation was of the view that as per the F.I.R., the lorry bearing registration number TN-25-2584 was involved in the accident, but all the documents submitted by the applicant are pertaining to the vehicle number TN-28-2584. Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the vehicle involved in the accident is TN-28-2584. According to him, the vehicle number was mistakenly shown as TN-25-2584 in column No. 12 of the F.I.R. It is the duty to the applicant to explain all the things before the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation. Having kept quite, the applicant cannot blame the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation. It is the sorry state of affair that the case of the poor litigants are not handled properly. Fault on the part of learned Counsel to handle the case before the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation cannot be lead to fall on the applicant.
The learned Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation has dismissed the application only on the ground that the F.I.R. and all other material documents show different registration numbers. On careful consideration of the evidence available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Commissioner for Workmen''s Commissioner ought to have given finding to the entire issues. When there is a dispute about the employment of the deceased on the date of death the applicant ought to have produced concrete evidence. She cannot conduct the case negligently and find fault with the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation later. So, she must produce concrete evidence to show that who is the employer of her husband on that day and what is the correct number of the vehilce. If she is not able produce any concrete evidence, the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation can dispose of the application as per law. So, for that, the matter has to be remitted to the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation.
Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the award of the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation and the matter is remitted to the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation (Deputy Commissioner for Labour), Madurai. The Commissioner shall give opportunity to the applicant to produce concrete evidence to show her husband''s employment and also about the compensation. If she is not prepared to produce any unshakable and concrete evidence, the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation is at liberty to dispose of the case in accordance with law. No costs.