- (1.) In this appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmens' Compensation Act, 1923, the appellant claimant is challenging the order dated 9.1.1998 passed in W.C. Case No.34/90 by the Commissioner, Workmens' Compensation Act, Sriganganagar whereby the claim of the appellant was rejected.
(2.) After hearing both the parties and perusing the pleadings so also the judgment impugned, it emerges that a claim petition was filed by the appellant stating therein that on 4.11.1988, he was working as labour on the construction work at the house of respondent along with one Shri Raghunath. The appellant fell down from the roof and suffered fracture upon his both legs and now he cannot stand for longer period and he is required to get treatment for longer period. In the claim petition filed by the appellant, notices were issued and after receiving notice by the respondent, reply was filed and all the allegations levelled by the appellant claimant were refuted and it was specifically mentioned that no such occurrence took place in the construction work of house of the respondent. The Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, Sriganganagar framed four issues and granted an opportunity to produce evidence and appellant produced three witnesses including him as PW-1, PW-2 Raghunath and PW-3 Dr. Sucha Singh. From the side of respondent, statement of five witnesses namely DW-1 Anand Prakash, DW-2 Suresh Chandra, DW-3 Kishan Chandra, DW-4 Samdita and DW-5 Kuldeep Chand were recorded and after recording evidence, the learned Commissioner decided all the issues against the appellant claimant vide order dated 09.01.1998 and said order is under challenge in this appeal.
(3.) As per learned counsel for the appellant finding of learned Commissioner is erroneous with regard to the fact that the claimant is not workman and does not fall in the definition of workman. Further, learned Commissioner has erred in holding that the appellant was engaged in work of casual nature. It is also argued that the order of the Commissioner is erroneous on the ground that burden which was upon respondent to prove that he was in employment has been shifted upon the appellant while holding that the appellant did not produce any documentary evidence. On the contrary, the appellant's statement were corroborated by independent witness PW-2 Shri Raghunath, so also the fact of injury has also been proved by PW-3 Dr. Sucha Singh. Therefore, the learned Commissioner has committed a grave error while rejecting the claim of the appellant. Therefore, this appeal deserves to be allowed.;