FAO No. 1857 of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- FAO No. 1857 of 2000 Date of decision: November 09, 2009 National Insurance Co. Ltd. ........ Appellant Versus Pokhri Devi and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate for the appellant Mr.Ashit Malik, Advocate for the respondents -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J.(Oral) This is an appeal by the Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 20.04.2000 passed by the Commissioner, under the Workmen's Compensation Act,1923. Pokhri Devi, respondent No.1 is the mother of deceased Raju, who died in a vehicular accident on 24.10.1994, while he was on duty with respondent No. 1. He was stated to be working as Cleaner on bus bearing registration No. DL-1P-8577. While challenging the aforesaid impugned award, learned counsel FAO No. 1857 of 2000 2 for the appellant submitted that the post-mortem on the deceased was conducted at Delhi whereas, the accident is said to have occurred at Karnal. It is further stated that neither the number of the bus is given in the claim petition and nor any detail has been referred to in the FIR. Hence, Raju (deceased) did not die due to said accident. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that a number of persons were injured and two of them had died in the accident in question. As many as seven claim petitions were filed under the Motor Vehicles Act. Five out of these claim petitions were allowed in favour of the claimants. The main claim petition was decided on 18.07.2000 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, copy thereof was placed on record through Civil Misc. No. 2310 -CII of 2003 before this Court. While deciding the aforesaid claim petition qua the same accident in which the son of the claimant had died, the Tribunal came to the following conclusion in para 19 of the award that :- ”19. Thus, in view of the above discussion, it is proved that Piara Singh respondent was rash and negligent while driving his vehicle and due to his rash and negligent act, Raj besides causing multiple injuries to other claimants. Thus, in view of the discussion above, this issue is accordingly held in favour of the claimant.” It was proved on record that the bus bearing Registration No. DL 1P 8577 hit against an other stationary truck bearing registration No. DL 1G 5451, on account of which, passengers of the bus received multiple injuries which resulted in death of two other passengers. Learned counsel for the FAO No. 1857 of 2000 3 respondents states that one of the other passengers, who died was the son of the present claimant-Pokhri Devi, who was cleaner on the aforesaid bus. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. As per proviso to Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act,1923, no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question is involved. The said proviso to Section 30 reads as under:- “30. Appeals- (1) xx xx xx (a) to (e) xx xx xx Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, and in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in Clause(b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees.” The ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in the appeal are all questions on fact. No law point has been raised. The instant appeal is therefore, liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Even on fact, it is apparent that the son of the claimant died in a vehicular accident which took place on 24.10.1997 involving a bus bearing registration No. DL-1P-8577, which hit against stationary Truck No. DL-1G- 5451 near G.T. Road Taraori, Karnal. The other passengers filed their claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act and five out of total seven petitions, were allowed. Learned counsel for the appellant does not deny this fact. The claimants herein did not file the claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, and rather preferred to file the same under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, as deceased, namely, Raju was an employee of the owner of the bus in FAO No. 1857 of 2000 4 question. It is apparent from the award and from the statement of respondent No. 1 that respondent No. 1 is attorney of the registered owner of the Bus and that the deceased was working with respondent No. 1 as Cleaner on the aforesaid bus. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge November 09, 2009 mohan