IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. NO. 485 of 2006 Pooran Singh .. Appellant. Versus Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner Tehri and others .. Respondents. Mr. K.M. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1. None has appeared on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. Dated: 22-5-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal U/S 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 12-7-2006, passed by Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Tehri, in W.C.C. No. 13 of 2005. 2- Perusal of record reveals that Santosh Sahu, son of the claimant Rajendra Sahu was employed as labourer for loading and unloading the goods in Truck No. Ume 1076. On 28-11-91 the said Truck was transporting Leesa from old Tehri to New Tehri. The said truck met with accident due to the rash and negligence of its driver and Santosh Sahu sustained injuries and died instantaneously at the spot. According to the claimant the deceased was 22 years of age and his monthly salary was Rs. 1050/- 3- The owner of the truck filed written statement and denied the allegations made in the position. He alleged that the deceased was not employed as labourer on his truck. 4- The claimant as well as the owner of the truck adduced evidence before the learned Commissioner. The Commissioner after considering the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, allowed the petition for compensation of Rs. 1,05,365/- against the owner of the said truck. 5- Feeling aggrieved, the owner of the offending vehicle has preferred this appeal before this Court. 6- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. 7- The sole point raised by learned counsel for the appellant before me is that the deceased was not the employee of the appellant and the learned Commissioner has misread the evidence on record and has passed the impugned award contrary to the evidence on record, therefore, the same is not tenable in the eyes of law. 8- The claimant in support of his version has filed the copy of F.I.R. and post mortem report and also produced himself as P.W.1. The owner of the vehicle has filed certified copy of judgment dated 27-7-99 passed in Criminal Case No. 82/92. From perusal of judgment dated 27-7-99 passed by C.J.M. Tehri shows that the truck was loaded with Leesa Drums and the accident had occurred due to rash and negligence of truck driver. The death of Santosh Sahu in the said truck has been alleged and proved in the proceeding before the learned C.J.M. and it was found that when the truck dashed with the rock, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to death. The claimant has specifically alleged that the deceased was employed in the truck as labourer to load and unload the goods and at the time of accident he was in the truck to load and unload the Leesa Drums. Therefore, the claim of the claimant has been substantiated by the documents as well as on oath statement of the claimant. On the other hand the owner of the truck, although has taken this plea in his written statement that the deceased was not employed in the truck but he has neither produced himself to rebut the claim of the claimant nor produced the reliable evidence in order to prove this fact that the deceased was not working on his truck. Had the deceased not employed on the truck the owner could have very well produced the driver of the truck in evidence to establish his contention. Therefore, in the above circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner was justified in holding that the deceased was employed as labourer in the offending truck to load and unload the goods and he has died during the course of his employment. The submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellant has no substance and is rejected. 9- So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned Commissioner has taken the income of Rs. 1,000/- per month and after adopting the relevant factor, awarded Rs. 92,975/- as compensation plus Rs. 12,390/- interest @ 6% per annum, total Rs. 1,05,365/-. I do not find any irregularity in the method adopted by the learned Commissioner and the impugned judgment and award does not require any interference. 10- In view of above discussion the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award is hereby confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB