Dismissed

Kalu Ram v. Kanwaljeet Singh and Another

Rajasthan HC15 Jan 2019CMA/5122/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Special Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the appeal filed by an injured claimant challenging the Commissioner's dismissal of his compensation petition for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident related to alleged employment.

What did the court decide?

The claim compensation petition was dismissed by the Commissioner due to lack of evidence regarding employment, injuries, and delay in FIR.

Kalu Ram Vs Kanwaljeet Singh and Another — Medical Negligence | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

J HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJ&STHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5'122j2012

¶3

Kallu Ram S/o Shri Dandu Ram, By Caste Joshi, R/o 89, Ayodhya Nagar, Agra Road, Jaipur Raj.

¶4

Versus

¶5

Kanwaljeet Singh Sjo Shri Preet Pal Singh, R/o First Floor Showroom, B-4, Sethi Colony, Jaipur Registered Owner Vehicle Truck @j8-i$~-3d49. A -

¶6

.u v3, 2. $. i; 3 *

¶7

Bajaj ~&i,a&z General nsuranch' ~6. Ltd. Through p+w.2 % ".. eF+ 2

¶8

Manger, A. F 0-12-A, Second Floor, Ashok Mia.&g,> C-Scheme, --,

¶9

apu~? ~nsurance Co. Vehicle Truck No. i-23'-$049

¶10

@ .&9*>,QY a.,.,!A , irw-(-iaxi .*a* ' 'W 9 r l. u* < -we. 24 For Appellant(s) ;,-M$,&g,h,sa.y ,. r Agarwal ., Y.k I". *",?;. ForRepod~~t-) $ ..* :w9+ .% ~'h:*$6'~~d ~m "

¶11

15/0'l/2019

¶12

Present appeal u

¶13

nt dated 10/10/2()12 passed by the Comm pensation Act, 1923, h. Jaipur-I, Jaipur in c~aid Case fio.d//217/2009 whereby the Commissioner dismissed the claim petition.

¶14

It is submitted by learned counsel for the claimant that the judgment passed by the Commissioner is perverse since discharge ticket Ex.9 and permanent disability certificate Ex.C-3 produced by the claimant had not bee.n properly considered. In Ex.9, it was clearly mentioned that injuries were sustained in road traffic accident. The claimant was admitted. in hospital from 15/4/2009 to

¶15

10/5/2009 and his left leg got amputed, therefore, the delay in lodging FIR has been properly explained.

¶16

have conside,red the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.

¶17

It is revealed from the judgment that no evidence was produced to prove the fact that appellant claimant was working as rm Khalasi in the emp)oymen< of Tespondent no. 1. No injury report & x-ray report 1$aai7been produced by the claimant-appellant to &* ' .' %A t substantiateTJthe fact that the appellant sustained $juries as $P p" 4 allegedehim. It is rightly observed by the ~ommi$idner that the FIR was lodged after $ii$8@tay of two months and no &Pys 4 !KC&<, ",p<h2v E!ryx $P ?,+"a- <<$$-$, **h** lb ;B3& ' ; % . % $4 K_ . . ,. explailation whatogefqs&@#;~~$$~~n: +h& regard. It is also @!*d&, & & 9%: $,2%;gk $y&w&$&;$::$ ' :#.& *,, 4? dy4&&p.~. _J $+7>: * ,&? revealed that laimanbqy&~d:iidQ::d&~ti a ,+ evx4st + a".'" .c~2:! i.a. .kn,@w. 5% ;& tie name of the driver & 4 ++ 2" ,?<$ ,JL;$.. qr 6'8 lie .% ,<-s 4s 4, who was driving the Bbl.{&6g:te;i@iI~e+~ant ?_ %$:$,- ,%,,, gT9 i;a).~h la%@ ~-e- r time. The findings .- % r* .d &zyy$ .& " * kca* I r"- NC recorded by the om missioner are pure findings of fact, no question of law invol ppeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

¶18

..-

¶19

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

Kalu Ram v. Kanwaljeet Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalu Ram v. Kanwaljeet Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kana Ram Meena and Others

Smt Sona Devi and Ors. Vs Shri Ramnarayan and Ors.

Suman Vs the General Manager

Nandkishore S/O Sh. Harlal Lodha Vs State of Rajasthan

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Indra Devi and Ors.

Patel Nagar Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Vs Roopa and Ors.