1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2252/2010 S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 1959/2010 (Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Subhash Chand & Another) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2312/2010 S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 2026/2010 (Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Jitendra Kumar & Another) Date of Judgment :: 15th February, 2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Virendra Agarwal, counsel for the Ins. Co. BY THE COURT: Since both these appeals arise out of the judgment and award passed by Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being decided by this common judgment. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.5.2007 at about 9.15 PM when Subhash Chand and Jitendra Kumar were working as Driver and Khallasi of Truck No. HR-55-8679, a dispute arose with the driver of truck No. RJ-14-GB- 0814 for giving side and they were given beating by the driver of the said truck No. 0814, as a result of which they sustained injuries. Thereafter FIR was lodged, claim 2 petitions were filed, notices were issued, issues were framed, evidence was recorded and after hearing both the sides, the learned Commissioner decreed different amount in different claim petitions in favour of the claimants and against the non claimants. The Insurance Co. has filed the aforesaid two appeals challenging the quantum of compensation. Learned counsel for the Insurance Co. has contended that learned Commissioner committed error in deciding issue no. 1 against the appellant as there was no documentary evidence on record to establish that claimants were ever given employment by the non claimant - respondent no.2 or they sustained injuries during the course of employment and hence, the impugned award being without jurisdiction is liable to be quashed. He has further contended that in the present case, it is evidently clear from the documentary evidence that the claimants were beaten by the culprits as there was dispute arose between them and the same has no nexus with the nature of job and hence the learned Commissioner has got no jurisdiction to pass the award against Insurance Co. and consequently the impugned award is liable to be 3 quashed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the impugned award including the relevant material on record. The learned Commissioner in its award categorically observed albeit the employment of workman was denied, but no denial was made with regard to payment of salary to the claimants. On the basis of affidavit of claimants, the learned Commissioner assessed the monthly income of the claimants to be Rs. 4000/- each. The learned Commissioner having dealt with each and every aspect of the matter, is found to have rightly passed the award. The impugned award is found not to have suffered from any legal flaw, rather it is found to be just and apposite, based on cogent finding, with which I fully concur. For the reasons stated, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned award passed by the learned Commissioner and the appeals filed by the Insurance Co. being bereft of any merit deserve to be dismissed, which stand dismissed accordingly. Stay applications also stand dismissed. (MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA),J. DK 4 All corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed. Dilip Khandelwal PA