F.A.O.NO. 3188 OF 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 3188 OF 2002 Date of decision: 13th July, 2010 New India Assurance Company Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Smt. Bachno Devi and others ........Respondents Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Paul S.Saini, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the award passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner accepting the version of the claimant that her husband died in the course of his employment as a driver of the tractor owned by the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent filed a statement admitting liability but stating that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify. The claimant examined herself to give evidence that her husband was employed as a driver with the F.A.O.NO. 3188 OF 2002 2 fourth respondent. AW-2 was examined to say that the driver was found murdered and lying in his field. The Commissioner found that the evidence of the claimant was sufficient to show the existing relationship of worker employer and between the deceased and the fourth respondent. 2. On the issue of death arising out of accident the Tribunal had referred to the written statement and found there was an admission of the death arising out of and in the course of employment. The statement of the insurer did not go beyond the general denials of what was stated by the appellant and making a further imputation that the claimant was only interested in extracting money from the insurer. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that the statement filed in Court did not contain the signature of the employer and therefore, it could not be acted upon. It is his further contention that there was no clear proof that the death arose only out of and in the course of the employment. We have already observed that the Commissioner has treated the death of workman as arising out of and in the course of employment by reference to the admission in the written statement of the owner of the truck. I cannot permit the insurer to argue that it contained no signature on the original records which are not before me and there is no authenticated copy of the alleged statement in my file. Learned counsel is said to have in his file the copy of certified copy of the statement which is produced before me and I notice it to bear the signature of the counsel F.A.O.NO. 3188 OF 2002 3 through Vijay Kumar Gupta. There is no particular specification under the Workmen's Compensation Act, as to how statement shall be verified. If it contains the signature of the advocate as acting on behalf of the employer, I would still take that to be verification good enough to bind the party. 4. The matter urged before me is wrong appreciation of evidence. Such appreciation without any basis may constitute a question of law but if the inference of fact was on the basis of alleged admission then it is not a question of law that could be urged under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 5. I am of the view that there is no question of law to be adjudged for consideration in appeal. The appeal is dismissed and the award of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner is affirmed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 13th July, 2010 Shivani Kaushik