Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE appellant Insurance Company has filed the present Misc. Appeal aggrieved by the Award dated 01.08.2003 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Bhilwara deciding the Claim Petition No. 61/1999 "Pappu Singh v. Goma Ram & Anr." awarding a sum of Rs. 1,06,451/ - for the injuries and permanent disability suffered by the claimant, while he was going in truck owned by the non -applicant No. 1 -Goma Ram S/o Kishan Ram Jat having registration number R.J.14/G -6216 on 08.11.1996 from Bhilwara to Chittorgarh. The claim petition was filed purportedly by the claimant with the averments that he was working as Khalasi on the said truck in employment of the non -applicant No. 1 Goma Ram S/o Kishan Ram Jat which truck was insured with the non -applicant No. 2 -National Insurance Co. Ltd. and, therefore, the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, has awarded the aforesaid sum of Rs. 1,06,451/ - to the claimant Pappu Singh for the injuries and for the disability to the extent of 42.93% vide Ex. 8 produced by the claimant.
(2.) THE relevant findings given by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, in the impugned order dated 01.08.2003 are quoted herein below for ready reference: - - 2. The learned counsel Mr. Jagdish Vyas appearing for the appellant -non -applicant No. 2 -National Insurance Company Ltd. vehemently urged that the claimant Pappu Singh was running the hotel owned by the non -applicant No. 1 Goma Ram having taken it on rent and he was never in employment of the Non -applicant No. 2 Goma Ram, whose aforesaid truck was insured with the appellant Insurance Company. The learned counsel submitted that the Investigator/Surveyor of the Insurance Company recorded the statement of the applicant -claimant Pappu Singh in which, he had stated, in front of one Rajendra Singh, that he was not working as a Khalasi on the said truck of the non -applicant No. 2 but had gone to bring cement for the hotel which he was running on rent from non -applicant No. 1 Goma Ram. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that in view of the above statement, the claimant never fell in the definition of 'Workman', as defined in the Workmen Compensation Act and, therefore, the claimant Pappu Singh was not entitled for compensation and the, therefore, also the Insurance Company, insurer of the truck in question, was not liable for payment of any compensation to the claimant -Pappu Singh. On the other hand, the learned counsel Mr. Jitendra Gehlot appearing for the respondent No. 1 -claimant submitted that the statements, as alleged to be recorded by the Investigator/Surveyor, were not signed by the claimant but the claimant had signed the blank papers given by the representative of the Insurance Company and he denied his signatures on the statements in the statements given before the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner on 21.07.2001. The learned counsel further submitted that at the time of accident, the claimant was in the employment of respondent No. 2 -non -claimant No. 1 -Goma Ram and was getting the salary of Rs. 1,500/ - per month. The learned counsel also submitted that the claimant is an illiterate person and on the date of accident, he was working as a Khalasi on the said truck owned by the respondent No. 2 -non -applicant No. 1 -Goma Ram and suffered injuries and permanent disablement during the course of employment of non -applicant No. 1 Goma Ram. The learned counsel Mr. J. Gehlot submitted that the corroborative evidence of Rajendra Singh, ought to have been produced by the appellant -Insurance Company to dis -prove the statements of the claimant Pappu Singh. The learned counsel submitted that neither the non -applicant No. 2 Goma Ram nor the aforesaid Rajendra Singh were produced before the Court to rebut the averments made by the claimant and, therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the learned Commissioner, Workman Compensation Act, Bhilwara has rightly given the Award dated 01.08.2003 and the same does not call for interference at the behest of the present appellant -Insurance Company.
(3.) IT is noticed that by the interim order dated 07.01.2004 granted by the coordinate Bench of this Court about the half of the amount to the extent of Rs. 50,000/ - was directed to be disbursed to the claimant subject to the final disposal of the present appeal.;