CW 10262/07 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.10262/2007 Smt. Goga Devi Versus Commissioner (Workmen Compensation), Ajmer & Ors. Date of Order ::: 06/04/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Sandeep Mathur, for petitioner (widow) Mr. SR Jatav for Mr. AN Pareek, for respondent (Ins. Co.) Mr. Anil Kr. Sharma, for respondent No.5 At request, matter was finally heard while considering application dt.18/03/09 filed by respondent No.5 U/Art.226(3) of Constitution seeking vacation of interim order dt.17/12/07 whereby further proceedings in Case-WCA(F)58/2005 before Commissioner (Workmen Compensation) Ajmer were stayed. Petitioner claims herself as widow of Sundaram who died on 08/03/05 in course of his employment while driving truck No.RJ-14-2G-7345 which allegedly met with an accident having taken place near village Mugana Police Station Kapasan (Chittorgarh). Truck was owned by Heeralal (respondent NO.3) who was employer of her husband (Sundaram) while driving the truck for transporting the goods on way from Vadodra to Kanpur on fateful day - 08/03/05. Petitioner indisputably is resident of Ajmer filed application (Ann.1) (WCCF-87/06) CW 10262/07 //2// before Commissioner Workman Compensation, Jaipur. Application (WCCF-58/05) was jointly filed on behalf of Hanotaram (father), Manjudevi (minor sister of deceased Sundaram) and by petitioner also, before Commissioner Workman Compensation, Ajmer. After notices were served of both applications filed at Ajmer/Jaipur, petitioner seriously raised objection (Ann.4) that she has not filed any application at Ajmer and wanted to pursue application filed by her at Jaipur on the premise that employer of her husband (driver) is temporarily resident of Jaipur as per Registration certificate of Truck and accordingly Commissioner (WC) Jaipur holds jurisdiction in terms of S.21(1)(c) of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (“WC Act”). At the same time, Hanutaram father of deceased alongwith Heeralal (truck owner) jointly filed application dt.24/09/07 (Ann.6) U/O 7 R.11 CPC seeking dismissal of claim application filed by petitioner before Commissioner at Jaipur. While Insurance Company (respondent No.4) filed application dt.24/05/07 before Commissioner (WC) Ajmer raising objection of having filed double claim applications under WC Act at Ajmer/Jaipur hence, prayed for dismissal of application filed CW 10262/07 //3// at Ajmer. After hearing both the parties, Commissioner (WC), Ajmer taking note of material on record, however, dismissed application of Insurance company dt.24/05/07 and so also of petitioner vide order dt.20/09/07 (Ann.5) observing ad infra: "ूाथȸया सं02 ौीमती गोगा देवी का जो पुनर्िववाह का समझौता पऽ पेश िकया गया उसमें भी ूाथȸया सं02 के ससुराल का पता गांव मामडोली िजला नागौर में हआ होना ु दशार्या गया है वाहन ः वामी अूाथȸ सं01 का वाहन संख् या आर-जे-14-2 जी-7345 में पंिजयत ः वामी का पता िजला नागौर में होना दशार्या गया है इस अनुसार िकसी भी पक्षकार का िजला जयपुर से कोई संम् बन् ध नहीं पाया जाता है अत: ूाथȸया सं02 Ʈारा ूः तुत ूाथना पऽ ः वीकार योग् य नहीं पाया जाता है खािरज िकया जाता है उक् त आदेशो के पँ चात अूाथȸ सं02 के ूाथनार् पऽ िदनांक 24-5-2007 पर कोई आदेँ ा देने की कायर्वाही अपेिक्षत नहीं रहती है अत: अूाथȸ सं02 बीमा कं0 का ूाथर्ना पऽ भी िनरः त िकया जाता है " On the basis of order dt.20/09/07, Commissioner (WC), Jaipur ordered to drop the proceedings being initiated on claim application of petitioner (WCCF-87/06) at Jaipur and consigned it to the record vide order dt.18/10/07 (Ann.7) after recording ad infra: "क् यɉिक न् यायालय कमर्कार क्षितपूितर् अिधिनयम अजमेर िजला अजमेर Ʈारा अपने िनणर्य िदनांक 20- 09-07 Ʈारा अजमेर न् यायालय का क्षेऽािधकार उपरोक् त तमाम आपि× तयो के बावजूद मान िलया है एवं इस न् यायालय के समक्ष न् यायालय के आदेश का आदर CW 10262/07 //4// करते हए मैं ूः तुत ूकरण ु 87/06 में कोई कायर्वाही िकया जाना न् यायािचत नहीं समझता हॅ तदनुसार पऽावली पर कायर्वाही समाप् त कर दफतर दािखल की जाती है " In the light of what has been observed (supra), application filed by petitioner before Commissioner (WC) Ajmer claiming that she has not filed any claim application under WC Act at Ajmer and intended to continue her claim application filed at Jaipur, was rejected and proceedings were allowed to continue at Ajmer vide order dt. 20/09/07 (Ann.5). Hence this petition. Counsel for petitioner submits that she being widow of deceased, it is her choice to continue claim proceedings under WC Act, however, subject to conferment of jurisdiction provided under S.21 of WC Act; and once she decided to continue proceedings at Jaipur, Commissioner (WC), Ajmer/Jaipur were not justified in rejecting prayer to continue claim proceedings under WC Act at Jaipur vide orders impugned. While supporting the orders impugned, Counsel for respondents submit that since all the parties are residents of Ajmer, it would be in the interest to continue proceedings at Ajmer which would facilitate not only father but also widow of deceased to lead evidence in support of their respective claims under WC Act. As regards CW 10262/07 //5// Insurance Company, their case is that adjudication should be at one place and have no objection whether proceedings may continue at Ajmer or Jaipur but atleast, parallel proceedings for self-same incident cannot be allowed to continue at two places. I have considered rival contentions of Counsel for the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. S.21 of WC Act lays down jurisdiction of Commissioner to decide dispute where accident took place which resulted in injury or where in case of dependents, claimants resides or where there is registered office of employer. There are three alternative places where jurisdiction vests with Commissioner to entertain dispute. Indisputably, accident took place at Kapasan (Chittorgarh) on7- 8/03/05 and all the claimants including widow (petitioner) father and minor sister of deceased indisputably are residing at Ajmer. As regards claim application of petitioner filed at Jaipur, while resorting to S.21(1)(c) of WC Act, it could be entertained if employer's registered office is situated at Jaipur. However, from registration certificate of Truck in question, registered owner has permanent address of district Nagaur while mentioned about CW 10262/07 //6// his temporary address of Phulera in Jaipur district. It is true that any of alternatives as provided under WC Act can be selected for jurisdiction. However, while all claimants are residing at Ajmer, ordinarily jurisdiction to entertain claim applications could be at Ajmer. It is in the interest of widow to lead evidence in support of her claim conveniently at Ajmer where she basically resides. Counsel for petitioner raised objection that she has not signed claim application filed at Ajmer where she is not interested to continue proceedings and thus moved claim application at Jaipur selecting one of alternatives as regards jurisdiction. However, once she is indisputably residing at Ajmer and claim application was filed at Ajmer prior to her claim application at Jaipur, in such a situation, proceedings at Ajmer may be allowed to continue. As regards her apprehension that Counsel who is presently appearing at Ajmer may not do justice with her claim, on account of he being engaged by father of deceased, she would always be free to engage counsel of her choice and may plead independently in support of claim application pending at Ajmer. However, this Court does not find any error which CW 10262/07 //7// may call for interference in the orders impugned. Consequently, this writ petition stands disposed of with the observations that petitioner will be free to engage her own counsel and independently plead and lead her evidence in support of claim application pending before Commissioner (WC) Ajmer who is expected to consider her grievance & decide claim application expeditiously in accordance with law. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.7/10262CW07Apr06.doc