HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting) Description of the case A.O. No. 264 of 2002 J.P. Singhal Vs. Smt. Sateshwari Devi & ors. Approved for reporting. Date of Decision: - 12-03-2008. Initial of Judge: ........................... ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ........................ RESERVED HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. NO. 264 OF 2002 J.P. Singhal, S/o Sri Om Prakash Singhal, R/o 29/6 Sheikhpuri – Roorkee, At present R/o C/o Sri Kailash Chandra Agarwal, Mohalla Jai Nagar, Station Road, Naziabad-District – Bijnour. .........Opp. Party/Appellant. Vs. 1. Smt. Sateshwari Devi, W/o late Sri Jagdish Singh, R/o Village Nail, P.S. Chamoli, Tehsil and District – Chamoli. ..................Claimant/Respondent. 2. Sub Divisional Officer, Tele Communication (Doorsanchar) Gopeshwar. 3. Assistant Direcor (Electric Safety), Government of U.P., Bijnour, Jainasi 2/172, Civil ine, Near Exhibition Ground, Bijnour. .......Opp. party/Respondent. Dated: 12.3.2008 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri B.C. Pande, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Sri B.D. Pande, counsel for the appellant and Sri Pankaj Purohit, counsel for the respondent. 2. By the present A.O. filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment and award dated 9.8.2002 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner Chamoli in W.C.A. Petition No. 3 of 2000-2001 Smt. Sateshwari Devi Vs. Sri J.P. Singhal, whereby the claimant /respondent no. 1 has been awarded a sum of Rs. 1,30,146/- towards compensation along with interest @ 10% per annum. 3. Briefly stated, an application was filed by the claimant / respondent no. 1 being W.C.A. Petition No. 3 of 2000-2001 Smt. Sateshwari Devi Vs. Sri J.P. Singhal, claiming a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards compensation. Prayer is to the following effect: ^^vr% egksn; ls fuosnu gS fd izfrokfn;ksa ls izkfFkZuh o mlds vkfJrksa dks 3,00,000/- ¼rhu yk[k :Ik;s½ {kfriwfrZ rFkk nq?kZVuk dh frfFk ls mijksDr /kujkf’k ij 13 1/2% okf"kZd C;kt dh nj ls izkfFkZuh o mlds vkfJrksa dks fnykus dh d`ik dh tk; A** 4. According to the claimant / respondent no. 1/her husband was working under the employment of Telephone Department, Gopeshwar / Sri J. P. Singhal / Contractor. On 28th July, 1994, when he was laying Telephone Line at Gopeshwar Region an accident took place due to the inter connection of telephone line and electricity line. Due to the strike of current, her husband died. The applicant has stated that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs., 50/- per day and was working under the aforesaid employment for the last four to five years. The deceased is survived by his wife Smt. Sateshwari Devi (applicant), son Pawan, father aged about 55 years, mother Uma Devi aged about 40 years, an unmarried sister Prema aged sister Prema aged about 17 years, one married sister Smt. Sulochana, two brothers Dilwar Singh aged about 23 years and Trilok Singh aged about 12 years. At the time of accident, the deceased was 25 years of age. His postmortem was conducted on 29.7.1994 at District Hospital, Gopeshwar. 5. The defendant no. 2 has contested the averments of the application filed by the applicant by filing a written statement stating therein to the following effect: ^^5- fd izkfFkZuh ds izkFkZuk i= ds izlrj la[;k 5 esa Bsdsnkj Jh ts0ih0 fla?ky dks ekeys esa fu;ekuqlkj {kfriwfrZ gsrq foHkkxh; i= fy[kk tkuk Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS] bl izLrj dh vU; ckrsa Lohdkj ugha gSA foHkkxh; i= Bsdsnkj dks blfy, fn;k x;k Fkk D;ksafd e`rd ds lxs lEcU/kh vDlj dk;kZy; esa vkdj iwNrkN djrs FksA 6- fd izkfFkZuh ds izkFkZuk i= ds izLrj la[;k 7 esa fy[kh ckrksa dks Lohdkj ughas fd;k tkrk gS] izfroknh la[;k 2 dks ekeys esa xyr i{kdkj cuk;k x;k gS tcfd e`rd ds ifjokj tuksa dks bl ckr dh iw.kZ tkudkjh gS fd e`rd Bsdsnkj Jh ts0ih0 fla?ky ds lkFk dk;Zjr Fkk rFkk nwj lapkj foHkkx dk deZpkjh ;k etnwj ugha FkkA 16- fd ,d gh nq?kZVuk ds ekeys esa nks izkFkZuk i= {kfriwfrZ pkgus gsrq izLrqr ugha fd;s tk ldrs gSa bl izdkj izkfFkZuh dk izkFkZuk i= =qfViw.kZ gSa rFkk fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS D;ksafd izkfFkZuh us Lo;a vius izkFkZuk i= esa Lohdkj fd;k gS fd blh nq?kZVuk ds lEcU/k esa iwoZ ls gh U;k;ky; esa ekeyk yfEcr gSA 6. The defendant no. 1 has also filed a written statement stating therein in the additional pleas to the following effect: ^^¼17½ ;g fd izkfFkZuh dk vius ifjokn i= ds izLrj ua0 1 esa ;g dguk xyr gS fd fnukad 28-7-94 dks nwj lapkj foHkkx e.My xksis’oj dh ykbZu fcNkus dk dk;Z ds Bsdsnkj ts0ih0fla?ky izfroknh Fks vkSj ml fnu nwj lapkj dh ykbZu fctyh foHkkx dh fcNh ykbZu ls Vdjk tkus ds QyLo:i izkfFkZuh ds ifr txnh’k dh e`R;q gks x;hA fnukad 28-7-94 dks izfroknh nwj lapkj foHkkx dks ykbZu fcNkus dk dksbZ dk;Z Bsds ij xksis’oj esa ugh dj jgk Fkk A ¼18½ ;g fd ifjokn i= ds izLrj &2 dk dFku ftl rjg rgjhj gS Lohdkj ugha gSA txnh’k uke dk dksbZ O;fDr dfFkr ?kVuk ds fnukad dks eq> izfroknh dk Jfed ugha Fkk ;g dguk Hkh xyr gS fd og 4-5 o"kkZs ls dk;Zjr gks vkSj bls 50/- :i;s jkst ;k 1500/- :i; izfrekg etnwjh feyrs gksaA ¼22½ ;g fd ifjokfnuh dk vius ifjokn i= ds izLrj 7 esa ;g dguk xyr gS fd fnukad 28-7-94 dks izfroknh nwjlapkj foHkkx dk Bsdsnkj gksA ml fnukad dks izfroknh }kjk dksbZ dk;Z nwjlapkj foHkkx dk Bsds ij xksis’oj ij ugha fd;k tk jgk FkkA lgh ;g gS fd izfroknh dks fnukad 10-8-94 dks xksis”oj o vU; lkhuksa esa nwjlapkj ykbZu fcNkus dks odZvkMZj feyk Fkk A vkSj fnukad 19-8-94 ls dk;Z vkjEHk fd;k x;k Fkk A tks fnukad 29-8-94 dks lekIr dj fn;k x;k FkkA bl dk;Z ds le; LoxhZ; txnh’k izfroknh dk Jfed ugha Fkk vkSj u gh mlds izfroknh ds dk;Z LFky ij dke djrs gq, mldh e`R;q gqbZA izkfFkZuh dksbZ izfrdj ifjoknh ls ikus dh vf/kdkjh.kh ugh gSA 7. After taking into consideration the evidence available on record, the Workmen Compensation Commissioner has allowed the application by recording a finding to the following effect:- ^^lEiw.kZ i=koyh dks ns[kus ls rFkk nksuksa i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.kksa dh cgl lquus ls ;g Li"V gS fd e`rd txnh’kflag Hkkjr ljdkj nwj lapkj fuxe }kjk xksis’oj &e.My VsyhQksu ykbu fcNkus esa dke dj jgk Fkk vkSj Jh0 ts0ih0fla?ky muds Bsdsnkj FksA ;fn fctyh dh ykbu ls e`rd txnh’k dh e`R;q gqbZ gS rks bldh ftEesnkjh Hkh nwj lapkj foHkkx o muds Bsdsnkj Jh ts0ih0 fla?ky dh Fkh] D;ksafd mUgsa vius etnwjksa ls lko/kkuh iwoZd dk;Z ysuk pkfg, Fkk A nwj lapkj foHkkx }kjk dgk x;k fd dk;Z esa gktjh ds lEcU/k esa fdlh dkxtkr dks Bsdsnkj ts0ih0 fla?ky us cpko esa is’k ugha fd;k x;k gSA vr% blls Li’V gS fd e`R;q ds fnu e`rd txnh’k flag Hkkjr nwj lapkj fuxe rFkk muds Bsdsnkj Jh ts0ih0 fla?ky ds v/khu dk;Zjr FkkA vr,o Jfed {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e 1923 dh /kkjk &4 ds vUrxZr :i;k 1]30]146&00 ¼,d yk[k rhl gtkj ,d lkS fN;kyhl :i;s½ ek= {kfriwfrZ dk nkf;Ro izfroknh uEcj 1 Jh ts0ih0 fla?ky iq= Lo0 vkseizdk’k fla?ky fuoklh }kjk Jh dSyk’k pUnz vxzoky eks0 t;uxj LVs’ku jksM] uthckckn] ftyk fctukSj o izfroknh ua0 2 mi e.Myh; vf/kdkjh] nwj lapkj foHkkx] xksis’oj ¼peksyh½ ij fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gSA vkns’k izkfFkZuh Jherh lrs’ojh iRuh Lo0 txnh’k flag fuoklh xzke uSy Fkkuk peksyh rglhy o ftyk peksyh dk Jfed {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e ds v/khu {kfriwfrZ pkgus fo’k;d izkFkZuk i= fnukad 21&11&1995 Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA foospkuqlkj vkaxf.kr {kfriwfrZ /kujkf’k :i;k 1]30]146&00 (,d yk[k rhl gtkj ,d lkS N;kfyl :i;s ek=) dk nkf;Ro izfroknh ua0 1 Jh ts0ih0 fla?ky iq= Lo0 vkseizdk”k fla?ky fuoklh }kjk Jh dSyk’k pUnz vxzoky eks0 t;uxj LVs’ku jksM] uthckckn] ftyk fctukSj o izfroknh uEcj 2 mi e.Myh; vf/kdkjh nwj lapkj foHkkx xksis’oj ¼peksyh½ ij fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gSA izfroknh uEcj 1 o 2 okn lafLFkr gksus dh frfFk 21&11&1995 ls mDr vkaxf.kr /kujkf’k ij 10 izfr’kr C;kt nsus ds mRrjnk;h gksaxsA izfroknhx.k vkns’k dh frfFk ls ,d ekg vUnj mDr vkaxf.kr /kujkf’k o ml ij 10 izfr’kr C;kt dh /kujkf’k dk Hkqxrku djuk lqfuf’pr djsaxsA okn vuqikyu i=koyh nkf[ky nQ~rj gksA” 8. I have gone through the award passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner and the evidence available on record. Since the deceased died due to shock of current while he was laying the telephone line under the employment of Mr. J.P. Singhal, who was the Contractor of Telephone Department at Gopeshwar, therefore, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the award passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner and the same deserves to be confirmed. 9. Consequently, A.O. is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 12.3.2008 Rathour