VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA,J. - (1.) The instant misc. appeal projects a challenge to the order made by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, Jaipur District-I, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to 'Commissioner'), declining the claim petition of the claimant-appellant(s).
(2.) Essential skeletal material facts necessary for the appreciation of the controversy are that the claimant/appellant, instituted a claim petition claiming compensation on account of death of his son (Shyoram @ Shivram), who died while in employment of the employer as driver on tractor bearing Registration No. RJ-1R-4341. It is pleaded case of the appellant that Shivram (deceased), was employed as driver on the tractor and he died on 12th August, 2007, at about 7:30 P.M. while he was repairing the tractor, which all of sudden started and the deceased was ran-over. An FIR No. 438/2007, was registered reporting the alleged accident. During the course of investigation, in response to a notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the employer informed the Governmental Environment Agency that Chhitarmal was employed as driver on the tractor while deceased Shivram, use to look after the tractor. The employer/nonappellant was proceeded ex-parte for he did not put in appearance despite service of notice.
(3.) The Commissioner, Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, 'the Act of 1923'), on a consideration of pleadings of the parties, framed five issues. For issue No.1 was decided against the claimant/appellant, therefore, declined the claim petition without further proceedings to decide other issues.;