I.K.KOTWAL
Vijay Ram – Appellant
Versus
Chander Prakash – Respondent
2. The respondents case before the Commissioner was that the appellant had taken him from Udhampur to village Talwada on 30-11-1977 to remove some defect in a compresser. On the following day, while he was going to the site of the appellants work alongwith his Munshi where the compressor lay, he was hit by a stone which flew high from a blast, resulting in his temporary disability to do any work for a period of five years. The appellants case on the other hand was that the respondent did not fall within the definition of a workman, as such, his claim for compensation under the Act, deserved to be rejected. The parties produced evidence in support of their respective cases and the Commissioner on consideration of the same held the respondent to be a workman employed by the appellant and awarded the compensation holding furthe
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.