SAROJ RAJAK Vs. RAMNIWAS AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal has been preferred by the claimant aggrieved by dismissal of their petition filed under the provision of Workmen's Compensation Act by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation (Labour Court), Satna aggrieved by order dt.23.7.2005 passed in Case No.B-29/WC Act/2003 whereby rejecting the application seeking compensation on account of death of Chhotelal aged 40 years, driver of the Tanker.

(2.) It was submitted by the claimants in their claim petition that the deceased was the driver of the tanker employed by respondent No.1. He had taken the tanker for supply of petroleum product in the intervening night of 29.3.2003 and 30.3.2003 around 11:30 p.m. to 12 p.m., when the vehicle was parked in front of cooperative house when driver was in the process of putting the article of the tanker in the cabin he fell down and sustained injuries, he was taken to Hospital in the intervening night at about 12:30'O clock, he was referred to Jabalpur when he died on the way to Jabalpur. He was brought back to District Hospital, Satna where he was formally declared dead. Post mortem was performed on 31.3.2003. Report was lodged in the night of 30th March, 2003. It was recorded by the police. Vehicle was insured with the New India Insurance Co.Ltd.. Deceased ;used to earn a sum of Rs.4,000/-per month. Owner was having the intimation of accident, still compensation was not paid. Hence, petition was preferred before the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation.

(3.) The owner in his reply denied the averments and contended that 30th March was Sunday, as such driver was not supposed to be on duty. He has parked the tanker on 29.3.2003 in the Depot. 30th March, 2003 was Sunday, as such no loading had taken place on 30th March, 2003. The tanker used to be parked in front of petrol Depot not in front of cooperative house. After he had parked the tanker he had left, thereafter he was found injured beneath the tanker standing in front of cooperative house from where he was taken to Hospital. He was referred to Jabalpur. He died on way to Jabalpur. Thus, injury was not caused to deceased in the course of employment. Thus, owner was not liable to make payment of compensation. Hence, petition be dismissed.