Skip to content


Ramkali Bai and ors. Vs. Dr. S. Swaminathan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectInsurance;Motor Vehicles
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in2(1985)ACC182
AppellantRamkali Bai and ors.
RespondentDr. S. Swaminathan and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....in coming to the conclusion that the deceased shivnath was not bitten by the snake during his duty hours. a perusal of paras 12 to 14 of the impugned order will go to show that the learned commissioner had scrutinized the evidence of all the witnesses adduced by the claimants/appellants and on evaluation of their evidence took the view that they were not a worthy of reliance. he, therefore, accepting the evidence of shri s.p. sharma (pw 1) and that of dr. h.k.b. parekh (dw 1) took the view that the deceased was not bitten during duty hours. on going through the evidence on record 1 am also of the view that the view taken is borne out from the material on record and is quite reasonable.5. it is an undisputed fact that the deceased was bitten by snake at about 1.00 a m. according to.....
Judgment:

Faizanuddin, J.

1. This appeal by the claimants Under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act has been directed against the order dated 11-11-1978 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (hereinafter referred to as 'The Commissioner') passed in case no. 10/W.C. (Fatal)/78, rejecting the appellants' claim for Compensation.

2. The deceased Shivnath husband of the appellants No 1 and 2 and father of appellants no. 3 to 5 was working in Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the University) as a Chowkidar on a daily wages @ Rs. 4 (rupees four). It is alleged that in the midnight of 20th July 1977 at about 12 30 a.m. while he was on duty as Chowkidar in Adhartal Dairy Farm Store of the University he was bitten by a snake which resulted into his death next morning to Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur. The appellants, therefore, led a claim for compensation under the Act. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents on the ground that the deceased Shivnath was not a workman under the Act and that he did not die because of snake bite during the course of and out of the employment.

3. The learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner) on an appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the deceased was a workman under the Act but he was not bitten be snake which resulted into his death during the course of and out of the employment and, therefore, rejected the claim-petition sgainst which this appeal has been rejected.

4. That only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the learned Commissioner took the right view of the evidence on record in coming to the conclusion that the deceased Shivnath was not bitten by the snake during his duty hours. A perusal of paras 12 to 14 of the impugned order will go to show that the learned Commissioner had scrutinized the evidence of all the witnesses adduced by the claimants/appellants and on evaluation of their evidence took the view that they were not a worthy of reliance. He, therefore, accepting the evidence of Shri S.P. Sharma (PW 1) and that of Dr. H.K.B. Parekh (DW 1) took the view that the deceased was not bitten during duty hours. On going through the evidence on record 1 am also of the view that the view taken is borne out from the material on record and is quite reasonable.

5. It is an undisputed fact that the deceased was bitten by snake at about 1.00 a m. According to the defence case the duty hours of the deceased were 5.00 p.m. to 10 00 p.m. and 4 00 a m. to 7.00 a.m. and that these duty hours were fixed on the representation of the Union. This fact is testified by Shri S P. Sharma (PW 1) who at the relevant time was an officer of the University and maintaining the attendance of the casual labour. He deposed that the duty hours of the deceased were 5.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. and 4.00 a.m. to 7.00 a.m. and that the deceased was not bitten during the duty hours. There is also the statement of Dr. H.K.B. Parekh (DW 1) a Senior Scientist of the University who stated that on the representation of the Union the order Ex. P.9 dated 1-61977 passed fixing 8.00 hours duty in two shifts that is to say 7.00 a.m. to 11.00 am. and 2.00 p m. to 6.00 p.m. in the day shift and 6.00 p m. to 10.00 p.m. and 4.00 a.m. to 8.00 a.m. in the night shift. There is no reason to disbelieve the responsible officers of the University. As regards the evidence adduced by the appellant there are discrepancies which make their evidence doubtful as pointed out by the learned Commissioner? In these circumstances in my opinion the view taken by the Commissioner is reasonable.

6. Apart from the above facts under the first proviso attached to Sub section (1) of Section 30 of the Act no appeal lies against any order passed unless a substantial question of law is involved. In the present case I do not find any substantial question of law involved and for this reason also it is not possible to make any interference in the impugned order.

7. In the result the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //