[2025:RJ-JP:23176] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2207/2003 Brij Mohan S/o Shri Jagannath Ji, R/o Khan Satalkhedi, Tehsil Ramganjmandi, District Kota Raj. ----Appellant Versus Zahoor Ahmed Abdul Majid, Pipakhedi Lime Stone Mines, Pipakhedi, Post Satalkhedi, Tehsil Ramganjmandi, District Kota Raj. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahesh Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hakam Ali for Mr. N.A. Naqvi, Senior Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 26/05/2025 1. Instant civil misc. appeal is preferred by appellant-claimant under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act aggrieved and dissatisfied from order dated 23.04.2002 in WCC claim case no. 44/1996 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act, Kota. 2. Learned counsel for appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that appellant has filed a claim petition on the ground that he was under the employment of respondent and during course of employment he suffered some grievous injuries on 27.06.1994 which resulted in disc-prolapse in his spine. He further submitted that after this incident, the appellant fell ill and resulted in loss of working capacity of the appellant. He also submitted that on 28.06.1996 appellant has to undergo surgery [2025:RJ-JP:23176] (2 of 3) [CMA-2207/2003] and still he is under the treatment. At last, he submitted that he has filed a petition for compensation as workman but the Commissioner has dismissed the petition on technical ground, which is contrary to object behind the Act of 1923. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of senior Advocate for respondent. He also submitted that it is necessary for the appellant to show and prove contract of employment and secondly, occurrence of accident during course of employment. He further submitted that the appellant has failed to show the grounds in his petition to claim compensation from respondent and the petition was rightly dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 5. The appellant claimant has filed a petition for compensation of ₹2,36,472/- on the ground that he was working under the employment of respondent non-claimant since 1986 and on 27.06.1994 due to sudden incident during course of employment, he suffered disc-prolapse of spinal cord and have to undergo surgery on 28.06.1996. The respondent claimant has denied the facts narrated in petition but admitted employment of claimant on monthly wages of ₹1060 per month till 01.07.1994. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, four issues were framed. The applicant himself examined as AW-1 whereas Mohd. Ehsaan was examined as NAW-1. 6. On the basis of evidence that the plaintiff has voluntarily stopped working since 01.07.1994 and thereafter, he started to work elsewhere and also no report was registered about the incident, the Commissioner held that the claimant has failed to [2025:RJ-JP:23176] (3 of 3) [CMA-2207/2003] prove that on 27.06.1994, he suffered some injury while in employment with non-applicant. On the basis of findings on issue No.1, all the issues were decided against the claimants. 7. On perusal of material on record, it has established that no document is filed on record to show that this appellant has ever suffered any accident during course of employment, which resulted into injury in spinal cord. The matter pertains to facts of the case and the same have been decided against the appellant plaintiff claimant. There is no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the Commissioner and there is no ground to entertain this appeal for consideration. 8. In view of discussion made hereinabove, instant civil misc. appeal is hereby dismissed, with pending application, if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /113