Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.20 seconds)Smt. Chhutbai And Anr. vs Madanlal And Anr. on 5 May, 1989
8. I have also gone through the judgments cited by the appellant
to the effect that in the absence of any cogent evidence that Tek
Chand was an employee of respondent No.3, he would not be entitled
to any compensation under the Act. Reference has been made to M/s
Shalimar Rope Works Ltd. Vs. M/s. Abdul Hussain H.M. Hasan Bhai
Bassiwala and Ors., AIR 1980 SC 1162, Jwali and Ors. Vs. Babu Lal and
Anr., AIR 1958 Allahabad 564, Smt.Chhutbai and Anr. Vs. Madanlal
and Anr., AIR 1989 Madhya Pradesh 330. However, once the
appellant has not been able to controvert the evidence led by the
respondent establishing that the deceased Tek Chand was working on
the tanker belonging to respondent No.3 and the said tanker was
being used for carrying out the activities of that respondent under the
FAO No.251 /2005 Page 3 of 4
instructions of that respondent and at the time of the accident he was
very much sitting on the tanker, this defence as pleaded by the
appellant is not available to them.
Section 30 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
1