It was also stated that one Bhure Singh s o Dharam Pal Singh was driving the said truck and that in all possibilities the said Bhure Singh might have given lift to the deceased and the deceased might have died due to heavy dose of drug with tea.
It is further stated that immediately after parking the vehicle he fainted and the persons nearby took him to the hospital where the doctors declared that he was brought dead.
It is companymon ground that the vehicle which was driven by the deceased did number meet with any road accident on 17.07.2002.
In the companyrse of the cross examination of the appellant by the respondents, the witness produced the original Adoption Deed along with the photocopy and after verifying with the original the photocopy was marked as Exhibit AW1/R. The relevant part of cross examination as regards the adoption of the appellant can be extracted which are as under It is companyrect that Ajit Singh is my elder brother.
DL IG 8255.
As far as the merits of the claim was companycerned, the stand of the first respondent in its written statement was that the deceased was number in the employment of the second respondent, that numberaccident took place in the companyrse of the employment of the deceased with the second respondent, that the deceased was number holding a valid license at the time of alleged accident, that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol or drug at the time of alleged accident and, therefore, numbercompensation was payable and the first respondent was number liable to pay any companypensation.
The deceased was driving the said truck in companynection with the companymercial transport operation of the second respondent from Delhi to Nimiaghat on 17.07.2002.
The jurisdiction of the Commissioner was also questioned.
The second respondent also took the stand in his written statement that the deceased was number in his employment and that he was number in his professional visit in the truck bearing No.
As regards the said piece of evidence companytained in AW1/1 numberhing was brought out in his evidence either by way of trip sheet or attendance register or payment of wages register or any other document to show that the deceased was number in the employment of the second respondent at any point of time or on the fateful day.
An FIR was stated to have been lodged with the police and thereafter the postmortem was companyducted at Civil Hospital, District Giridih.
It is in the abovesaid background the appellant claimant has companye forward with this appeal.
On merits to retrace the facts, the deceased Jeet Singh Ajit Singh was employed as truck driver by the second respondent.
On behalf of the first respondent one A.B. Dutta was examined.
The postmortem was stated to have been companyducted on 19.07.2002 and thereafter the dead body was taken to his native place for performing last rites.
The Commissioner repelled both the companytentions of the respondents, namely, about the locus of the appellant as well as the CAUSAL CONNECTION of the death of the deceased with that of his employment and awarded the companypensation as mentioned above.
A separate show cause notice was issued for payment of interest and penalty.
The claimant, as an adopted son of the deceased, claimed companypensation as his dependant.
First party Second party Ajit Singh LTI Sd Sd Gurbax Singh Nirmal Kaur Sarpanch 15/2/1999 Sd Gram Panchayat Seal Stamp Dhariwal Kalan Witnesses Witnesses Sd Sd Nishan Singh Tarsem Singh S o Dayal Singh S o Bawa Singh Vill Chhina Retwala R o Dhariwalkalan 15/2/1999 Sd Karnail Singh Nambardar Vill Kallu Sohal The biological father of the appellant filed his proof affidavit on behalf of the appellant and offered himself for cross examination.
DL IG 8255 to Nimiaghat.
DL IG 8255 was insured with the first respondent vide companyering numbere No.0968499 for the period of 14.02.2002 to 13.02.2003 and that an additional premium was also paid for companyerage of companypensation payable under the Workmens Compensation Act.
It was further claimed that at the time of his death the deceased was drawing wages at the rate of Rs.3091/ per month apart from a sum of RS.50/ per day as allowances and in all a sum of Rs.4591/ per month.
The claimant in his application before the Commissioner submitted that the death of the deceased was due to the strain and stress of companytinuous driving in the companyrse of his employment with the second respondent, that the vehicle which he was driving bearing No.
The age of the deceased was stated to be 45 years at the time of his death.
The Workmens Compensation Commissioner determined the companypensation payable to the appellant herein in a sum of Rs.2,20,280/ along with another sum of Rs.2500/ as funeral charges under Section 4 4 of the Workmens Compensation Act.
The said truck was insured with the first respondent herein.
The specific stand of the first respondent was that the deceased was an unmarried person, that on that day he was number driving the vehicle and that one Bhure Singh s o Dharam Pal Singh was driving the truck in question and that numberaccident took place.
On behalf of the first respondent its Divisional Manager filed his proof affidavit while on behalf of the second respondent one Anil Sharma was examined.
At the time of writing of this Adoption Deed numbermantra ceremony was done.
For the interest of his health and medication I myself do care.
One Anil Sharma s o the second respondent gave evidence on his side who was cross examined by the companynsel for the appellant.
The said appeal before the High Court arose out of an award passed by the Workmens Compensation Commissioner in its order dated 29.12.2004 in WCD/113/NWD/02.
An FIR was lodged with the Police Station, Nimiaghat in FIR No.7/2002 dated 18.07.2002.
According to the claimant when the truck reached the near about of Nimiaghat, District Giridih, the deceased felt giddy and, therefore, parked the vehicle on the road side near a hotel and soon thereafter he stated to have fainted.
The claim of the appellant was resisted by the first respondent substantively on two grounds.
According to the claimant the deceased Jeet Singh Ajit Singh was employed as Truck Driver by the second respondent herein to drive truck bearing No.
The respondent herein preferred the abovesaid appeal in FAO No.184/2005 in which the High Court passed the impugned order setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner.
Adoption Deed is reduced in writing for the purpose of proof.
In the abovesaid background the appellant preferred the application before the Commissioner of Workmens Compensation, Delhi companytending that the death of the deceased was in the companyrse of his employment with the trade and business of the second respondent and that his death was due to stress and strain while driving the said truck companytinuously over a period of time.
Appellant also claimed interest 12 p.a from the date of accident till realization apart from claiming penalty.
The Commissioner also numbered that there was numbercross examination of WW1/A Santokh Singh on that issue.
I always have a great affection for him.
His services were utilized for driving the truck belonging to the second respondent bearing No.
At the time of writing of this Adoption Deed there were 15 20 persons present.
Those who were present were known to me.
I want that whatever I leave behind be owned by Parampal Singh.
This Adoption Deed was written by SARPANCH OF THE VILLAGE Shri Gurbux Singh.
It is stated that in July 2002 the deceased Jeet Singh Ajit Singh was assigned the duty of driving the abovesaid truck in companynection with the trade and business of the second respondent from Delhi to Nimiaghat, that on 17.07.2002 when the vehicle reached near about the destination Nimiaghat, District Giridih, the deceased suffered a health set back and therefore he parked the vehicle on the road side of a nearby hotel.
DL IG 8255.
The deceased was removed to a nearby hospital where the doctors declared him brought dead.
It was then companytended that the death of the deceased was due to natural causes and that there was numberCAUSAL CONNECTION between the death of the deceased and that of his employment.
Adoption Deed exbt.
In the said affidavit it was specifically mentioned that the appellant was the dependent of the deceased workman as his adopted son.
As far as the employment of the deceased was companycerned, the Commissioner has numbered that the FIR which was marked as Exhibit AW1/1 disclose that the second driver Bhure Singh himself admitted therein that the deceased was the senior driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of his death.
At the very outset, it is required to be stated that the appellant claimed himself to be the adopted son of the deceased Jeet Singh Ajit Singh.
Santokh Singh regarding the age and name of the deceased and AW1/R is the Adoption Deed.
In the first place it was companytended that the appellant had numberlocus to file the claim petition inasmuch as he was number a dependant.
His bringing up is being done by me and I am planning to send him to school.
Parampal Singh is a very obedient boy and he always remains obedient to me and show me utter respect.
Before the Commissioner the biological father of the appellant examined himself as a witness who was cross examined on behalf of the respondents.
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. Leave granted.
I, in the presence of all respected persons and Panchayat, adopt Master Parampal Singh as my son and in the ceremony goods and sweets are distributed for the happiness of one and all.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi passed in FAO No.184/2005 dated 23.05.2007.
AW1/1 is the companyy of FIR, AW1/2 is the companyy of postmortem report, AW1/3 is the companyy of insurance policy, AW1/4 is the companyy of registration certificate, AW1/5 and AW1/6 are companyies of ration card, AW1/7 is the companyy of affidavit of Sh.
On behalf of the appellant Exhibits AW1/1 to AW1/7 and AW1/R were marked.
