Uttarakhand High Court
AO/147/2013 of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs SEEMA DEVI and OTHERS on 31 December 2013
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal from Order No. 147 of 2013 United India Insurance Company Ltd. .……….. Appellant Versus Seema Devi & others. ………… Respondents. Mr. K.K. Shah, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. N.S. Sone, Advocate, holding
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal from Order No. 147 of 2013
United India Insurance Company Ltd. .……….. Appellant
Versus
Seema Devi & others. ………… Respondents.
Mr. K.K. Shah, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. N.S. Sone, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. N.K. Papnoi, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Kishore Kumar, Advocate for respondent No. 4.
Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J.
This appeal is directed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 against the judgment and award dated 30.01.2013 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner.
2. The substantial questions of law, which have been framed in this appeal, are in fact no substantial questions of law. Lack of fitness certificate, contributory negligence, valid driving licence, etc. cannot be said to be substantial questions of law. The admitted facts are that the deceased was a workman of respondent No. 4 and he died during the course of his employment while doing some mechanical work beneath the Dumper when the Dumper suddenly started by reason of a short-circuit. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of negligence on the part of the driver. The learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner framed all the necessary issues as to whether all the papers of the Dumper, like RC, Permit, Fitness, Insurance, etc., were valid or not, and whether the driver was having valid driving licence or not. After dealing with all the issues, the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner allowed the claim petition of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and fastened joint liability to pay the compensation on the appellant Insurance Company and respondent No. 4 owner.
3. Therefore, from the discussion as above, I do not find any illegality in the judgment and award dated 30.01.2013 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner. The appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
G
(B.S. Verma, J.) 31.12.2013