Mahesh vs Manoj Kumar Agarwal And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 4380 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:19433]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4724/2008

Mahesh S/o Maliram, R/o Rajpura, Tehsil Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur
Raj.
                                                                         ----Appellant
                                         Versus
1.       Manoj Kumar Agarwal S/o Shri Babu Lal, By Caste
         Agarwal, R/o Old Sadak, Manoharpur, Distt. Jaipur
2.       National      Insurance         Company          Ltd.       Through     Senior
         Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, M.i. Road, Jaipur
                                                                      ----Respondents

For Appellant(s)               :    Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Adv.
For Respondent(s)              :    Ms. Raj Sharma, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Judgment

Date of Judgment 29/08/2023

The instant appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant

(for short 'the claimant') under Section 30 of the Workmen

Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act of 1923') against the

judgment dated 02.08.2008 passed by the learned Workmen

Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur District -II, Jaipur (for short

'the Commissioner') in claim case No.WCCNF 306/2006 titled as

"Mahesh Vs. Manoj Kumar & Anr.", whereby the claim petition filed

by the claimant has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the

Commissioner has wrongly dismissed the claim petition filed by

the claimant. Learned counsel for the claimant also submits that

the Commissioner has not appreciated the evidence led by the

claimant. Learned counsel for the claimant also submits that the

[2023:RJ-JP:19433] (2 of 3) [CMA-4724/2008]

respondent No.1-Manoj Kumar Agarwal admitted the factum of

accident and also admitted that the claimant was in his

employment. Learned counsel for the claimant also submits that

no record was submitted by the respondent No.2-National

Insurance Company Limited (for short 'the insurance company')

that the claimant was a student. Despite that, the Commissioner

committed an error while considering the claimant as a student.

So, finding of the Commissioner be set-aside.

Learned counsel for the insurance company has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimant and

submitted that the claimant was a student. When he was coming

from school in interval, then the accident occurred with unknown

vehicle. Learned counsel further submitted that the insurance

company got investigated the case and procured the investigation

report which was proved during the evidence. So, the

Commissioner has rightly rejected the claim petition filed by the

claimant. So, appeal filed by the claimant be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the claimant as well as learned counsel for the

insurance company.

The insurance company had procured the investigation

report of accident, in which, it was mentioned that the claimant

was not under the employment of respondent No.1-Manoj Kumar

Agarwal and he was only a student. When he was coming from

school on bycycle in the interval, then the accident occurred with

unknown vehicle. So, in my considered opinion, the Commissioner

has not committed any error in dismissing the claim petition filed

[2023:RJ-JP:19433] (3 of 3) [CMA-4724/2008]

by the claimant. So, the appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to

be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Gourav/138

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)