IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. NO. 471 OF 2005 Dani Ram S/o Sri Jeet Ram .. Appellant. Vs. Smt. Janki Devi and four others ...Respondents. With A.O. NO. 470 OF 2005 Jai Lal Ram S/O Laxman Ram .. Appellant. Vs. Smt. Janki Devi and four others ...Respondents. Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. K.K. Shah, Advocate for respondent No.6/Oriental Ins. Company. Mr. A.N. Sharma, Advocate for respondents 1 to 5. Dated: 10-04-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Both these appeals arise out of the same accident, and involve same points for consideration, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2- A.O. No. 471 of 2005 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 7-10-2005 passed by Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Champawat in WCC No. 13/2002, whereas A.O. No. 470 of 2005 arise out judgment and order dated 7-10-2005 passed by Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Champawat in WCC No. 14/2002. 3- The facts of the case, in short, are that on 2- 6-1999, Truck bearing registration No. U.G.P. 4015 met with accident. According to the claimants, Chatra Ram and Manoj Kumar, were travelling in the said truck in order to load and unload the stones and concrete and in the said accident both of them had died. 4- The Opposite Parties/respondents 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of owner of the offending truck and Opposite Party/respondent No.5 is the insurer of the said truck. The allegation of the opposite parties is that in lieu of deaths of both the above deceased persons, earlier also claims were preferred and the deceased were shown labourer of contractor Harish Chandra Mishra and it was also mentioned therein that the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Champawat has taken the work from the said labourer of Harish Chandra Mishra. The earlier claims were rejected by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Champawat. Now against the above facts, the deceased have been shown the labourer of owner of Truck No. U.G.P. 4015 and claims have been filed against the legal heirs of late Narain Singh, owner of the Truck and the insurer of the said truck. 5- The learned Commissioner framed relevant issues in both the claim petitions and after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, dismissed the claim petitions. 6- Feeling aggrieved, the claimants have preferred these appeals before this Court. 7- I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8- At the outset it may be noted here that the learned Commissioner has concluded that pertaining to the accident in question WCC Cases 7/2000 and 8/2000 were also instituted and in those petitions police report, post mortem reports and report dated 26-1-2001 submitted by Investigator of the Insurance Company were filed and from these documents it has become quite clear that Chatra Ram and Manoj Kumar had died in the said accident. Against the above finding no appeal has been preferred either by the legal heirs of the owner of the offending truck or the Insurance Company, therefore, it has become quite clear that the above deceased had died in the accident occurred on 2-6-1999 near Sadbenidhunga in which Truck UGP 4015 had involved. 9- Now the crucial point which remains for determination is as to whether the deceased Chatra Ram and Manoj Kumar were riding in the truck in the capacity of Workmen and they had died in the said accident in discharge of their duties or not?. 10- The contention of the claimants in their claim petitions is that the deceased persons were employed workmen with the Narain Singh, owner of Truck No. UGP 4015 and at the time of accident they were sitting in the truck in order to load and unload stones and concrete and during the course of their employment they had died, therefore, the claimants were entitled to get compensation in lieu of death of above workmen. On the other hand the contention of opposite parties is that the above deceased persons were not employed as workmen with the said truck. 11- To prove their contention the claimants Jai Lal and Dani Ram produced themselves as P.W.1 in their respective claim petitions and deposed that the deceased were employed as workmen in the offending truck and they had died during the course of discharge of their duties. P.W.2 Krishna Ram was also examined, who has supported the version of the claimants. This witness has also stated that the deceased persons were not the labourer of contractor Mishra. This witness in his cross- examination has stated that he did not work with Narain Singh. He admitted that the claimants Jai Lal and Dani Ram are his village uncles. The interested statement of the claimant witnesses cannot be relied upon as the same is against the earlier version of the claimants, when they had filed claim petition Nos. 7 of 2000 and 8 of 2000, in which it was pleaded that the deceased Chatar Ram and Manoj Kumar were the labourer of contractor Harish Chandra Mishra. In the above petitions affidavits were also filed swearing therein that the deceased were the labourer of contractor Harish Chandra Mishra. On the other hand the respondents, the legal heirs of Narain Singh, owner of the offending truck, who had also died in the said daccident, have specifically denied the factum of the deceased being workmen of late Narain Singh and this fact has also been deposed by D.W.1 Ravindra Singh Bora, son of late Narain Singh in his on oath statement before the learned Commissioner. The Insurance Company has also denied the version of the claimants and specifically alleged that the deceased were not the workmen employed with the said truck. In view of above contradictory version of the claimants and in absence of adducing reliable and convincing evidence about the deceased being workmen of late Narain Singh, the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the plea of the claimants. Had the deceased persons been employed as workmen on the Truck UGP 4015 at the time of accident, the claimants could not have filed earlier claim petitions against Contractor Harish Chandra Mishra for compensation in lieu of their deaths stating therein that they were labourer of Harish Chandra Mishra. It is not believable that the claimants had not knowledge about the employer of their sons. In my opinion, if the deceased were employed as workmen with the offending truck, then there was no question for the claimants to have filed the earlier petitions against contractor Harish Chadnra Mishra, leaving the actual employer. 12- In view of above discussion I do not find any force in these appeals. The impugned judgments and orders passed by the learned Commissioner do not require interference by this Court. 13- Both the appeals, having no merit, are liable to be dismissed. 14- Accordingly A.O. No. 471/2005 and A.O. No. 470/2005 are dismissed. The impugned judgments and orders passed by the learned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner are confirmed. 15- Let a copy of this judgment be placed in the file of A.O. No. 470/2005. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB