F.A.O No.1336 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O No.1336 of 2003 Date of Decision: 27.10.2009 Satwant Kaur & others ....Appellants Versus Amar singh and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. S.S. Virk, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is an appeal for setting aside the Order dated 29-08-2002 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act, Kurukshetra, vide which, the Commissioner dismissed the application for compensation filed by the appellants. The brief facts of the case are that on 12-09-1993, deceased Surjit Singh, who was working as driver on Truck No.PBD-6605 was going towards Ambala Cantt and when truck reached the area of Sanwla on G.T. Road, the front tyre of the truck busted due to which, truck dashed against bridge resulting which Surjit Singh died. Admittedly, the DDR No.43 dated F.A.O No.1336 of 2003 2 13-09-1993 was entered by one Amar Singh at Police Station Sadar Thanesar. It s also admitted that Amar Singh, is in fact, the brother of the deceased. The entire dispute, in the case is, whether Amar Singh is the employer of the deceased Surjit Singh or not. The claim of the appellant was dismissed by holding that the deceased Surjit Singh was not the employee of Amar Singh, owner of the truck and the claim petition was dismissed by holding as under :- “ After perusing the evidence and record on file and as per DDR No.43 dated 13-09-1993 Ex.A2/1, I am of the primary opinion that the case of the applicant do not get established against respondents on the basis of statement given by Bhushan Kumar as RW1 and enquiry report submitted by R.N. Sharma as RW2 clearly mentioning therein that the deceased Surjit Singh along with their brother were residing jointly and have five trucks and doing business jointly. The applicant has also not being able to prove the employment. In view of the discussion made above, I hold that there was no exist relationship of employer and employee between the respondent No.1 and deceased workman and death of deceased Surjit Singh was not in the course of his employment with respondent No.1 and their claim application is not maintainable, therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the respondent.” After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having perused the entire record, I may have disagreed with the Workmen Commissioner that deceased-Surjit Singh and Amar Singh, the owner of the truck were doing business jointly, in case, any one of the five trucks were not owned by deceased-Surjit Singh. During the hearing of the case, it was stated by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that an Investigating Officer has been appointed to verify whether, any one of the five trucks, mentioned in the DDR Exhibit A-2/1 was exclusively or jointly in the name F.A.O No.1336 of 2003 3 of the deceased-Surjit Singh or not. The affidavit of Mohinder Singh Bhandal resident of VPO Kanech, Near Sahnewal, District Ludhiana, dated 18-09-2009, has been placed on record, which is based on the report of the Registering Authority, Motor Vehicle, Khanna, to state the ownership of truck No. PCK-3345 and it was found that as per the register maintained by the Motor Vehicle, Khanna, the truck No.PCK-3345 has been registered in the name of Surjit Singh son of Sh. Harminder Singh resident of VPO Jarg, District Ludhiana, having Chassis No.364052858480, Engine No.692DO2877329 Model 1988 and the said vehicle stands hypothecated with Indian Overseas Bank Chakohi. It is, therefore, apparent from the above that the finding recorded by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Kurukshetra, is indeed correct and deceased Surjit Singh, was in fact jointly carrying on the business of transport along with his brother Amar Singh. One of the five trucks being in the name of deceased Surjit Singh, it cannot be said that he was an employee of his brother. No merits. Dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 27.10.2009 JUDGE gurpreet