This is a civil miscellaneous appeal under Sections 30 and 30A of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. The appellant challenged the Commissioner's award of Rs. 2,39,700 as compensation. The court found the master-servant relationship valid and dismissed the appeal.
The appeal by the appellant was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2023/RJJP/007220]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1895/2006
K. K. Agrawal S/o Late Shri Sitaram JI Agrawal, R/o C-11, Prithviraj Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
----Appellant/Non-Applicant
Versus
Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are all R/o E-58, Mazdoor Nagar, Police Thana Sadar, Jaipur
----Respondents/Applicants
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vishwanath Karan Rathore, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. P. Pujari, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
ORDER RESERVED ON :: 19.04.2023 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 21.04.2023
The present appeal under Section 30 and 30A of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act of 1923’) has been preferred by the appellant-non-applicant (for short ‘the nonapplicant’) against the judgment dated 31.03.2006 passed by Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Case No.WCCF-14/2003, whereby the Commissioner has ordered to deposit a sum of Rs.2,39,700/- as compensation with interest 9% per annum.
[2023/RJJP/007220]
[CMA-1895/2006]
(2 of 3)
The accident took place on 10.01.2003. An application for compensation was filed. After framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on record and hearing counsel for the parties, the Commissioner decided the claim petition in favour of the respondents-applicants (for short ‘the applicants’).
Feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment and award, the non-applicant has submitted the instant appeal, inter alia, on various grounds.
Learned counsel for the non-applicant submitted that nonapplicant had not engaged the deceased-Ram Karan for white wash work. He had not negotiated any terms and conditions for repairing the house. So, there was no master and servant relationship with the non-applicant and deceased-Ram Karan. Learned counsel for the non-applicant also submitted that police personnel had obtained the signature of the non-applicant on blank paper and they misused the signature in writing the agreement. So, Workmen Compensation Act is not applicable. Learned counsel for the non-applicant also submitted that claimants fail to prove that the non-applicant had ever employed Ram Karan for white wash work. Learned counsel for the nonapplicant also submitted that in the affidavit, non-applicant clearly stated that his house was only at 9 feet height. Since, there is no evidence on record regarding height of the house, the Commissioner wrongly assessed it to be 12 feet. Learned counsel for the non-applicant also submitted that the Commissioner awarded interest @ 9% per annum. So, award of the Commissioner be set aside.
[2023/RJJP/007220]
[CMA-1895/2006]
(3 of 3)
Learned counsel for the applicants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the non-applicant and submitted that there was a relation of master and servant between non-applicant and deceased-Ram Karan because nonapplicant had employed Ram Karan for white wash work and when he was doing work, he lost his balance and fell down. So, learned Commissioner rightly awarded the compensation. Learned counsel for the applicants also submitted that Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 is final authority to decide the claim. So, no appeal is maintainable. So, the appeal be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the non-applicant as well as learned counsel for the applicants and perused the impugned judgment.
Learned Commissioner in its judgment clearly mentioned that deceased-Ram Karan was employed by the non-applicant for white wash work. When he was doing work, he fell down. So, in my considered opinion, learned Commissioner rightly came to the conclusion that there was a master and servant relationship between non-applicant and deceased-Ram Karan. So, learned Commissioner rightly awarded the compensation against the nonapplicant. So, present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin/69
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the master-servant relationship existed between the appellant and the deceased workman for purposes of Workmen Compensation Act.
Whether the learned Commissioner was right in assessing compensation to the respondents.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K. K. Agrawal
Gyani Devi
Meena
Raju
Sunita
Narendra Singh Dhaddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
