Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SULTAN SINGH versus MAI CHAND

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sultan Singh v. Mai Chand - FAO-215-1980 [2006] RD-P&H 9183 (24 October 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

FAO NO.215 of 1980

DATE OF DECISION: October 11, 2006

Sultan Singh

....Appellant

VERSUS

Mai Chand

.....Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
PRESENT: Shri Vivek Arora, Advocate for the appellant.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral).

The claimant is appellant before this Court. He has approached this Court for setting aside the award dated March 7, 1980 passed by the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, Panipat, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant- appellant has been dismissed.

The learned Commissioner while rejecting the claim petition filed by the claimant has held that the claimant himself was negligent, inasmuch as, he was wearing Khes/Chadar while working on the crusher which entangled in the same resulting in injuries to the claimant.

During the course of arguments, this Court found that the claimant had described himself as a minor at the time of filing of the claim petition. In the claim petition, it was mentioned that the accident in question had taken place 1-1/2 years prior to the filing of FAO No.215 of 1980

the petition, when the claimant was working as a labourer/worker on the crusher. In these circumstances, it is apparent that the claimant was a minor at the time of the accident in question.

In these circumstances, a query was put to the learned counsel for the appellant as to how a minor could be employed on a stone crusher and how such a minor could seek compensation for any injury suffered by him during the course of such employment when the said employment was illegal. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to satisfy this Court that employment of the appellant-claimant was legal and valid. In this view of the matter, I find that the claim filed by the claimant with regard to injury suffered by him while he was in the employment, is not legally sustainable.

In view of the aforesaid fact, I find no merit in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

October 11, 2006 (Viney Mittal)

KD Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.